RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.A. Saroj for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Shankar Yadav for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.3.1990 and 13.2.2006 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.2.2014. The dispute in consolidation arose in respect of inheritance of Raja Ram. Ram Naresh, Ramraj and Ram Lakhan were three brothers of Raj Ram filed an objection that on the date of death of Raja Ram, Sharda Devi, daughter of Raja Ram was married as such under Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 they are the preferential heirs being the real brothers. The other objection was filed by Smt. Sharda Devi claiming inheritance of Raja Ram being his daughter. The objections were tried by the the Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 28.6.1980 found that Smt. Sharda Devi was already married on the date of death of Raja Ram, therefore, his brothers were preferential heirs and directed for recording of their names as heirs of Raja Ram and the objection of Smt. Sharda Devi was dismissed. It appears that subsequently a forgery has been committed in the order dated 28.6.1980 and out of three brothers, namely, Ram Naresh, Ramraj and Ram Lakhan, the name of Ram Lakhan was scored out from the order. Smt. Jiyani widow of Ram Lakhan filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for recall of the order which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 5.3.1990. Subsequently, Kanhaiya Lal, son of Ram Naresh filed an application for recall of the order dated 5.3.1990 on which the matter was again heard by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.2.2006 found that the orginal order dated 28.6.1980 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been fabricated and the name of one of the brothers, namely, Ram Lakhan, was scored out from it. Accordingly, he by order dated 13.2.2006 held that Ram Lakhan and after his death his widow Smt. Jiyani would be heir and her name was directed to be recorded along with the names of heirs of Ram Naresh and Ramraj. The petitioners filed a recall application on which the Consolidation Officer has issued notice on 8.8.2007. Then Smt. Jiyani filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on which the entire record was summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and who by the impugned order dated 5.3.2014 has held that after death of Raja Ram his property was inherited by his three brothers, Ram Naresh, Ramraj and Ram Lakhan. The Consolidation Officer, accordingly, by order dated 28.6.1980 directed for recording the names of three brothers as heirs of Raja Ram. However, subsequently, by fabricating the order dated 28.6.1980, the name of Ram Lakhan was scored out from it. Therefore, the application filed by Smt. Jiyani, widow of Ram Lakhan was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.2.2006. The order dated 13.2.2006 does not suffer from any illegality as such the recall application and the cognizance taken on it was liable to be set aside. On this finding the revision was allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 8.8.2007 was set aside and the order dated 13.2.2006 has been maintained. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners submits that the Consolidation Officer has finally decided the case after hearing the parties by judgment dated 28.6.1980 as such he has no jurisdiction to review/modify his order as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Shivraji Vs. DDC and others, 1997 (88) RD 562 and the subsequent order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.2.2006 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally maintained the order dated 13.2.2006.;