Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.P. Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sankatha Rai for the contesting respondents. The dispute is with regard to the right of petitioners for being impleaded in proceedings under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) initiated by respondent No 1 for mutation in the revenue record.
(2.) The facts are that one Brindavan Das was Sarvarkar of Shree Radha Krishna Thakurji Virajman Mandir, Bhagaura in district Malioba. Brindavan Das being unable to perform seva and pooja on account of old age and illness executed a registered deed appointing his disciple Prahlad Das as Sarvarakar. Prahlad Das died on 18.8.2002. On his death Brindavan Das executed another deed dated 27.8.2002 appointing petitioner No. 2 as Sarvakar. Prahlad Das is alleged to have executed a Will deed dated 26.7.2002 verified before the public notary in favour of his disciple Balram Das. It has been alleged that when the fact of Will deed being executed by Prahlad Das was brought to the notice and knowledge of Brindavan Das another deed dated 25.10.2002 registered on 26.10.2iK)2 was executed by Brindavan Das cancelling the earlier deed dated 27.8.2002. The petitioner No. 2 also joined in the said deed and was a signatory to the same. Brindavan Das is alleged to have executed another solitary deed of cancellation dated 5.5.2005 cancelling the earlier deed dated 27.8.2002 executed in favour of petitioner No. 2 appointing him as Sarvarakar. On the same day a trust by the name of Sri Thakur Bihari Joo Maharaj Religious and charitable was created and a trust deed was executed I with Brindavan Das as President and newly added respondent Nos. 5 to 9 to the writ petition as other office bearer. Thereafter, an application under section 12 of the Act was filed to mutate the name of the trust in the revenue record in place of Mandir Radha Krishna Thakurji. An objection was filed by the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha and the dispute was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer for adjudication. During the pendency of the proceedings before Consolidation Officer the petitioner moved an application for impleadment which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 20.10.2003. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the application of the petitioners on a finding that signatures and photograph of petitioner No. 2 on die cancellation deed dated 25.10.2002 are identical to that on registered deed dated 27.8.2002 appointing him as Sarvarakar and since he himself is a signatory to the cancellation deed cancelling the deed dated 27.8.2002 is left with no right and is not liable to be impleaded. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable being directed against an interlocutory order The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on the finding that since petitioner No. 2 was signatory to the deed dated 25.10.2002 cancelling the document dated 25.8.2002 by which rights of Sarvakari was conferred upon him as such he is left with no right or interest and k not liable to be impleaded in the proceedings.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of rival p]ies and perused the record.;