RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.N. Pathak, for the review applicant/petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, for respondents -2 and 3.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 29.11.2000, allowing the revision filed by respondents -2 and 3 and setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.08.2000 and dismissing the revision of the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 26.11.2013. The petitioner has filed this petition for review of the aforesaid judgment dated 26.11.2013.
(3.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of inheritance of the properties of Sahabjad Singh, situated in villages Karenhua, Deokhari, Kishundaspur and Matanpur, pargana Nizamabad district Azamgarh. Sahabjad Singh died on 20.05.1996. The petitioner, who is daughter of Sahabjad Singh, filed applications under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for mutation of her name over the land of all the villages as an heir of Sahabjad Singh under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The Consolidation Officer, by orders dated 29.10.1996 and 17.01.1997 allowed the mutation applications and directed for mutation of the name of the petitioner. Santosh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Kumar Singh (respondents -2 and 3) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed applications on 23.08.1999 for recall of the orders dated 29.10.1996 and 17.01.1997 and for recording their names over the land in dispute under the will dated 14.05.1992, allegedly executed by Sahabjad Singh in their favour. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 25.10.1999 recalled the orders dated 29.10.1996 and 17.01.1997 and directed for fresh proclamation being issued in the mutation cases. The petitioner filed applications on 03.12.1999 for recall of the orders dated 25.10.1999, stating that order dated 25.10.1999 was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The applications were heard by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 29.08.2000, found that recall applications filed by the respondents were allowed without issue of notice to the petitioner and without summoning the original record. On these findings, he allowed the recall applications of the petitioner and recalled the orders dated 25.10.1999 and restored the recall applications of the respondents and consolidated them. The respondents filed a revision against the order dated 29.08.2000, allowing the recall applications of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a revision against the part of the order consolidating the recall applications of the respondents of all the villages. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 29.11.2000, allowed the revision filed by the respondents and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.08.2000 so far as recall applications of the petitioner were allowed and dismissed the revision of the petitioner, upholding the order of consolidations of the cases. The writ petition was dismissed on 26.11.2013 after hearing the parties. The petitioner has filed an application for review of judgment dated 26.11.2013. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that judgment dated 26.11.2013 proceeded on the premises that the respondents have filed mutation application under Section 12 of the Act on the basis of will dated 14.05.1992 as such the applications filed by the petitioner and the respondents were liable to be decided simultaneously. While the correct fact was that Sahabjad Singh died on 20.05.1996. The respondents have not filed any application under Section 12 of the Act, for mutation of their names on the basis of alleged will dated 14.05.1992 rather they merely filed applications for recall of the mutation orders dated 29.10.1996 and 17.01.1997. Alleged Will dated 14.05.1992 has already been cancelled by Sahabjad Singh by another will dated 10.10.1995. So long as recall applications filed by the respondents are not allowed the matter cannot be reopened. Consolidation Officer, in the order dated 29.08.2000, found that recall applications filed by the respondents were allowed by an ex parte order dated 25.10.1999 without issue/service of notice on the petitioner and without summoning the original record. These findings have been upheld by Deputy Director of Consolidation even then he allowed the revision of the respondents and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer.;