Kailash Nath Misra, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforesaid writ petitions are directed against the same judgment and order dated 8.1.1979 passed by the Deputy Director bf Consolidation, in proceedings arising out of the case under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act,' and, as such, both these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: - -
(2.) THE dispute in the present case relates to land of Khata No. 310 which was recorded in the name of Smt. Mahesha, widow of Baur. She died and on her death, Chet Ram petitioner in writ petition No. 509 of 1979, got his name mutated in place of Smt. Mahesha, vide order dated 15.4.1979 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 23.7.1975 executed by Smt. Mahesha in his favour. This order appears to have been passed in favour of Chet Ram in the lifetime of Smt. Mahesha. It appears that after death of Smt. Mahesha, Lakshman, the petitioner in writ Petition No. 593 of 1979, filed a mutation application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be heir of Smt. Mahesha, being her husband's father's brother's son. He thus claimed that the land in dispute devolved on him upon the death of Smt. Mahesha. Subsequently, when the petitioner Lakshman came to know that the name of Chet Ram has already been ordered to be mutated, vide order dated 15.4.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of an alleged sale deed dated 23.7.1975 he preferred an appeal against the said order, before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. It was contended that the sale deed dated 23.7.1975 is invalid and no mutation could be ordered in the name of Chet Ram because requisite permission to make transfer was not obtained by Smt. Mahesha from the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as was required under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. In the appeal Chet Ram was arrayed as respondent. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, after hearing the parties made a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act vide reference order dated 24.10.1978. He had recommended that since the sale deed dated 24th July, 1975 is invalid and void as no prior permission was obtained for making the transfer as was required under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, and as such, the order of mutation dated 15.4.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer be set aside. The appeal which was filed by Lakshman was, however, dismissed being time -barred as delay was not condoned. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties accepted the reference vide order dated 8.7.1979 (Annexure 3) and while setting aside the mutation order dated 15.4.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the aforesaid ground, further directed that the land in dispute be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Feeling aggrieved by this order, petitioner Lakshman has preferred writ petition No. 893 of 1979.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.;