Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY Affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Amaresh Singh, for respondent -2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.6.2014, passed in the proceeding under section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) THE dispute pertains to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 646, 647 and 907 of village Kadarchauk, pargana Ujhani, district Badaun. In basic consolidation year, khata 646 was recorded in the names of Rajendra and Trimohan sons of Kedar (petitioners -1 and 2), khata 647 was recorded in the names of Rateebhan and Rajpal sons of Kedar (petitioners -3 and 4) and khata 907 was recorded in the name of Sunder son of Malkhan, which contained an amal daramad of order of Naib Tahsidar dated 16.5.1998, recording the names of Rajendra and Trimohan sons of Kedar (petitioners -1 and 2). It is alleged that Consolidation Officer by his order dated 28.8.2006 passed in Case No. 1687 under section 9 -C of the Act held share of recorded tenure holders as 1/2 each. Thereafter, Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted a report dated 10.12.2009, mentioning therein that the names of the petitioners were recorded in basic consolidation records over the aforesaid khatas by making forgery. On the report dated 10.12.2009, Consolidation Officer registered separate cases i.e. Case Nos. 210 (in respect of khata 646 and 647) and 211 (in respect of khata 907) and by orders dated 8.10.2010 and 8.1.2011 respectively directed for deleting the names of the petitioners from the aforesaid khatas. The petitioners filed their appeals (registered as Appeal No. 414 and 415) from the aforesaid orders of Consolidation Officer, which were dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by order 9.4.2011. The petitioners filed revisions (registered as Revision No. 182 and 183) against the aforesaid orders, which were allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 14.7.2011 and orders of Consolidation Officer dated 8.10.2010 and 8.1.2011 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.4.2011 were set aside.
(3.) DOREE Lal (respondent -3) filed a separate objection (registered as Case No. 4) under section 9 -A(2) of the Act, for recording his name over khatas 646 and 647, on the basis of Will dated 21.02.1994 allegedly executed by Jhamman Lal son of Khumani in his favour and for deleting the names of the petitioners from it. Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.4.2011 dismissed the objection of Doree Lal. Doree Lal filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 69) which was allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 30.1.2012. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 470 of 2013 -14). In the meantime, Manoj Kumar Raghav (respondent -4) filed a complaint before Hon'ble Chief Minister of State of U.P. on 12.2.2014, alleging that the petitioners by committing forgery in collusion of Deputy Director of Consolidation had grabbed the land of the persons who died issueless and land was vested in State of U.P., annexing the copies of the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer and orders passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. Copies of this complaint was also given to Consolidation Commissioner U.P. and District Magistrate Badaun. This complaint was brought to the notice of Deputy Director of Consolidation then he treated this complaint as recall applications in Revision No. 182 and 183 (allowed on 14.7.2011) on behalf of State of U.P. Revision No. 470 of 2013 -14 and complaint were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by the impugned order dated 18.6.2014, recalled the order dated 14.7.2011 and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 8.1.2010 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.4.2010 and remanded the cases to Consolidation Officer with direction to implead State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha and after giving opportunity of evidence/hearing to the parties decide afresh. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;