Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1980 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the case has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
(2.) The dispute arises out of proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) and relates to plot no. 102/65 and Khata no. 175. The undisputed facts are that one Raj Bali, father of the petitioner was recorded as sirdar of the land in dispute He died in 1956 when the petitioner was minor, aged about 2 years. Vide order dated 11.4.1956 passed by Naib Tehsildar, the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue record in place of his deceased father. Shortly, alter the death of the petitioners father his mother also died. The petitioner was under care and supervision of his grand mother. On account of his disability, being a minor, the petitioner was not able to cultivate the land himself as such it was let out to one Sawaroo, the father of respondent no. 4 on " BATAI" (crop sharing basis). Later on the grand- mother of the petitioner executed a sale deed of the disputed plot in favour of Sawaroo on 11.5.1959, on behalf of the petitioner as his guardian. The name of Sawaroo also came to be mutated in the revenue record.
(3.) On attaining majority when the petitioner came to know about the entries in the revenue records he filed objection under Section 9 A (2) of the Act for expunging the name of Sawaroo on the ground that sale deed executed by his grand mother during his minority was void as she was not the natural guardian. The objection was contested by respondent no. 4 on the ground that since no suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed by the petitioner within limitation, after attaining majority his rights in the land in dispute were extinguished and in the alternate it was pleaded that he has perfected rights by being in possession for about 20 years.;