- (1.) HEAD Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and also Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer( Consolidation) dated 18.12.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.1.2014 arising out of Proceeding under section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Admittedly, in basic consolidation record, the name of Rupai along with the name of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute. Muradan, Subratan and Bakridan filed an objection under section 9 -A of the Act claiming themselves to be the daughter of Rupai and prayed for mutating their names over the land in dispute in respect of share of Rupai. The objection was initially decided by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioners. Muradan and others filed an appeal from the aforesaid order which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The petitioners filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 13.3.1973. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3378 of 1973 from the aforesaid order which was allowed by this court vide order dated 3.8.1979 and the matter was remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision of the petitioners afresh. After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation again by order dated 3.7.1989 dismissed the revision of the petitioners. The petitioners filed Writ Petition no. 30464 of 1990 against the aforesaid order. In the writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Muradan and others were not the daughters of Rupai. This court has specifically found that from the exact of birth register it was proved that three daughters were born to Rupai in the year 1909,,1917 and 1929 as such the finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that Muradan and other were daughters of Rupai do not suffer from any illegality. This Court has further found that as Rupai was co -share along with the petitioners over the land in dispute as such the plea of adverse possession cannot be raised by the petitioners as possession of one co -share is possession of all. On this finding the writ petition was dismissed.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 20.11.1990 corrected his order and directed that in place of Muradan the name of Amantulla has already been substituted by order dated 3.12.1987 as such the order dated 19.9.1990 is corrected up to the extent that Muradan is represented through her son Amantulla. It appears that some application was again filed on which another order dated 22.01.1991 was passed and held that the order dated 20.11.1990 was modified and in place of Muradan, Amantulla son of Muradan be read. It appear that in spite of dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners have again filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.11.1990. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 13.6.2002 recalled the orders dated 20.11.1990 and 22.1.1991 on the ground that it amount to review of the earlier order for which the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction. In the meantime an application was filed under Rule 109 -A read with section 52(2) of the Act for giving effect to the order passed in the title proceeding.The Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.12.2013 directed for compliance of the order dated 11.8.1999 in the record. Thereafter two appeals were filed by the respondents which were allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 18.12.2013 and the matter was remanded back to Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated 19.9.1990, according to schedule 'A' and 'B' of the list of property mentioned in the writ petition before the High Court. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been disposed of by order dated 22.1.2014 by which again it has been held that as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.9.1990 has been upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No.30464 of 1990 vide judgement and order dated 9.12.1993 as such the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.9.1990 is required to be given effect to. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;