Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Tiwari holding brief of Sri K.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.C. Srivastava holding brief of Sri Vinay Singh, who has filed caveat on behalf of Sohan Lal Seth, respondent No. 4. This petition arises out of an objection under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and has been filed challenging the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an objection under section 12 claiming on the basis of an alleged registered sale -deed, said to have been executed by the father of the respondents 4 and 5 in favour of his brother Shitala Prasad, the father of the petitioners, in 1954. This objection is said to have been decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by his order dated 22.2.1995, on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. Aggrieved by the compromise order of 1995, an appeal was filed by the respondents 4 and 5 challenging the compromise order. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 5.8.2010 affirmed the compromise order. It appears that this order was set aside on a restoration application and the Set -dement Officer, Consolidation again decided the matter and by his order dated 20.5.2011, dismissed the same on the ground of limitation and maintainability. The consequential revision filed by respondents 4 and 5 was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi on 27.10.2014. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the reasoning, given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order impugned, cannot be sustained. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision primarily on two grounds. First that the objection was filed under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming on the basis of a registered sale -deed, said to have been executed in the year 1954. He has also recorded that the village was brought under consolidation operations in the year 1991 and, therefore, the objection should have been filed under section 9 -A(2) and not under section 12. The second reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the objection that was filed is shown to have been filed on 3.1.1995 but the application has been signed by the Counsel and the date, put under the signature, is 20.12.1994. He has also categorically recorded that the affidavit filed in support of the objection was also shown to have been sworn on 20.12.1994. He has therefore held that the affidavit is prima facie forged and, therefore, allowed the revision.;