Krishna Murari - (1.) -Heard Sri V. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhan Prakash appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) THE dispute relates to khata No. 73. THE parties to the writ petition are related to each by following pedigree : During consolidation proceedings Jaipal s/o Kanwal Singh filed objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') claiming 1/4th share in the disputed khata. His claim was contested by Satyavir and Mahavir s/o Dharam Singh on the ground that their uncle Kanwal Singh had executed sale deed dated 19.11.1965 of half of his l/4th share in the property in dispute in their favour and in favour of other brother Jasbir as such they are entitled to l/8th share and Jaipal Singh has 1/8th Share. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.3.1982 disbelieved the sale deed and determined the share of the parties in accordance with the pedigree. Respondent No. 4 Satyavir filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 16.7.1984. Feeling aggrieved Jaipal Singh filed a revision which came to be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.8.1996. Jaipal Singh died during the pendency of the revision. The petitioner who is wife of Jasbir Singh claims to be his legal heir on the basis of Will executed in her favour. After dismissal of the revision she moved an application for recall of the order dated 19.8.1986 on the ground that an application for substituting her in place of deceased Jaipal was filed but the revision was dismissed ex parte without hearing her. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.2.1987 dismissed the application on the finding that she was substituted in place of deceased Jaipal on 2.7.1986 and was represented by Jagdish Prasad, advocate who was heard in the matter. Feeling aggrieved she has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 16.7.1984 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and order dated 19.8.1996 and 27.2.1987 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation while reversing the findings of the Consolidation Officer have failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence which formed the basis of the findings of the Consolidation Officer. It has further been urged that the alleged sale deed was discarded by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the oral evidence of one of the vendees namely, Jasbir and also on the ground that the same was not duly approved in accordance with law. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation without taking into account the fact have accepted the sale deed only on the ground that it was a registered document.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned orders by saying that the sale deed was registered document and has rightly been accepted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. I have considered the contention advanced on behalf of the rival parties and perused the record of the writ petition.;