- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, (for short, DDC) the order 6.12.2004 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, (for short, SOC) and the orders dated 23.8.2004 and 24.8.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer (for short, CO).
(2.) THE dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot nos. 974/1 and 974/2 of village Barawan Bhadauli, pargana, tehsil and district Bahraich. In the basic year record these plots were recorded in the name of father of respondent no. 6, namely, Rupendra Vikram Singh @ Bade Yuvraj Kumar.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that a patta of the aforesaid land was executed by the zamindar in favour of Bal Govind, uncle of the petitioner. Bal Govind, who was in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the lease aforesaid, became sirdar of the same on the abolition of zamindari. It is further alleged that in 1955 he deposited 10 times of the land revenue and obtained a bhumidhari sanad in his name. Despite the sanad in favour of Bal Govind his name was not recorded over the land in dispute; Bal Govind executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner. On the death of Bal Govind on 21.5.1977 the petitioner succeeded to the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid will. The trees planted by the petitioner and his uncle Bal Govind exist over the land in dispute, apart from the house, as also a Shivala (a temple of Lord Shiva) and the petitioner is in possession over the same. On 18.12.1999, respondent nos. 5 and 6 executed a sale -deed in favour of respondent no. 4, the contesting respondent. The purchaser filed an objection under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, CH Act) claiming mutation on the basis of sale -deed in his favour. The Consolidation Officer on 15.3.2004 passed an order to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a recall application which was dismissed by order dated 23.8.2004. On 24.8.2004 the objection filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed and he was ordered to be mutated over the land in dispute. The order of the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed in appeal by the SOC vide order dated 6.12.2004. The consequential revision was dismissed by the DDC on 3.6.2005. Hence this writ petition challenging three orders of the consolidation courts, as also the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting the recall application filed for recalling the order dated 15.3.2004 whereby the matter was ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. For the purposes of the writ petition, the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer is very crucial. By this order recall application of the petitioner was dismissed and the matter was permitted to proceed ex parte against him. This order has been passed on the reasoning that the petitioner had preferred an objection under section 9A(2) of the CH Act, which gave rise to Case No. 862, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 8.12.1999. Appeal No. 529 against this order in Case No. 862 aforesaid was dismissed on 15.11.2000 by the SOC. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Revision No. 57/140/179/2003 -2004, which was also dismissed. The import of these orders was that the objection of the petitioner stood dismissed. All the three courts rejected the claim of the petitioner on the reasoning that in the earlier round of consolidation operations in the village, the uncle of the petitioner, namely, Bal Govind, failed to raise any claim as regards the land in dispute on the basis of the bhumidhari sanad alleged to have been obtained by him in the year 1955. It was, therefore, held that the claim of Bal Govind is barred by the provisions of section 49 of the Act after the first consolidation operations came to a close. Under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner, which is based on a will alleged to have been executed by Bal Govind in his favour would confer no right, title or interest upon the petitioner, and this claim also stood barred by provisions of section 49 of the CH Act as his predecessor - in -interest had failed to take any proceedings for getting his name recorded during the first consolidation operations. In this connection, it is also relevant to state that the aforesaid three orders passed by the consolidation authorities, namely, the orders dated 8.12.1999, 15.11.2000 and 3.2.2004 have been affirmed upto this Court. Writ Petition No. 842 (Cons) of 2004 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 10.3.2004, a copy whereof is on record of the writ petition as annexure SCA -1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4.;