- (1.) HEARD Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Gupta,for respondents -5 and 6.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Collector dated 14.02.2014, allowing the appeal of respondents -5 and 6 and remanding the matter to Tahsildar for deciding the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing/evidence to the parties and Additional Commissioner dated 13.03.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order, arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) THE dispute between the parties relates to plot 518 (area 0.937 hectare) of village Jagethi, pargana and district Meerut. Vishal (petitioner -1) minor son of Satto alias Harendra Singh, under guardianship of Brahm Singh (petitioner -2) filed an application (registered as Case No. 49/305) under Section 34 of the Act, on 29.01.2011, for mutation of his name as an heir of Satto alias Harendra Singh, who died on 16.10.1995. It was stated by the petitioners that Brahm Singh and Satto alias Harendra Singh son of Brahm Singh had jointly purchased the land in dispute along with plot 345 from Hukum Singh son of Chhajju Singh through registered sale deed dated 20.12.1980. During consolidation, they filed an application (registered as Case No. 5) under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, for mutation of their names. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 11.07.1986 directed for mutation of their names but due to inadvertence, instead of Satto alias Harendra Singh son of Brahm Singh, the name of Satto daughter of Brahm Singh was recorded over the land in dispute. Taking advantage of wrong entry, Satto alias Santo (respondent -5) executed a sale deed dated 03.01.2007 of the land in dispute in favour of Shiksha Devi and others, who sold the land in dispute to Pravesh Kumar (respondent -6) although they had no concern with the land in dispute. The land in dispute belonged to Brahm Singh and his son Satto alias Harendra Singh and after his death it was inherited by Vishal, who is his only son. The case was contested by Satto alias Santo (respondent -5) on the ground that she was daughter of Brahm Singh. Satto alias Santo and Brahm Singh jointly purchased the land in dispute from Hukum Singh son of Chhajju Singh through registered sale deed dated 20.12.1980. They were illiterate persons. Taking advantage of their illiteracy, Jagat Singh, who was taken by them for witnessing the sale deed, got the names of Jagat Singh and Sarjeet Singh sons of Raghunath Singh, inserted in the sale deed as transferees along with them in collusion with the scribe, although entire sale consideration was jointly paid by Satto alias Santo and Brahm Singh. The scribe further committed a mistake in the parentage of Brahm Singh and wrote his parentage as Khacheru in stead of Banshi and after name of Satto wrote "son" in stead of "daughter". There was no alias name of Harendra Singh son of Brahm Singh as Satto. In order to grab the property of Satto alias Santo, now alias name of Harendra Singh son of Brahm Singh is being denoted as Satto. On coming to know about the fraud having been committed, Satto alias Santo and Brahm Singh informed this fact to Hukum Singh son of Chhajju Singh, and requested him to execute a rectification deed. Then he executed a rectification deed dated 09.01.1981, rectifying the mistakes committed in the sale deed dated 20.12.1980. When Satto alias Santo and Brahm Singh filed an application for mutation of theirs names on the basis of sale deed, Jagat Singh also filed an application of mutation of the names of Jagat Singh and Sarjeet Singh. The Consolidation Officer, under misconception that the deed is a voidable document as such so long as it is not canceled from Civil Court, it cannot be ignored by consolidation courts, directed for mutation of the names of Jagat Singh and Sarjeet Singh also along with the names of Satto daughter of Brahm Singh and Brahm Singh. Satto alias Santo rightly sold the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Shiksha Devi and others and thereafter they executed sale deed in favour of Pravesh Kumar (respondent -6) and his name was also mutated in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed over the land in dispute.;