Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.P. Mishra for the petitioners and Sri S.D. Pandey for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 14.6.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 20.8.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.2.2015 passed in the proceeding under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) ON the basis of registered sale deed dated 20.1.1988 Heerawati, Krishnawati and Ramlawati, respondents -4 to 6 filed an objection (registered as Case No. 1 of 2001) under section 12 of the Act for mutation of their names over the land sold to them in the sale deed dated 20.1.1988. The case was contested by the petitioners. It is alleged that Dhanpatti has filed an objection in the case on 20.8.1988. Thereafter issues have been framed, evidence of the parties were recorded. The contesting respondents filed sale deed dated 20.1.1988 and also copy of the permission dated 8.1.1988 granted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Case No. 103 under section 5(1)(c) of the Act. In order to prove the due execution of the sale deed the contesting respondents examined Mata Sharan, Ram Lotan Pandey, who were marginal witnesses of the sale deed and Madan Srivastava scribe of sale deed and also witnesses Keshav Ram Shukla and Raj Ram Mishra. The petitioners adduced documentary evidence for establishing that the permission dated 8.1.1988 granting permission to sell has been recalled by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 10.10.1988 and Smt. Dhanpatti executed a registered agreement to sell of the land in their favour. However, the petitioners did not examine any oral evidence. It may be mentioned here that it is alleged that Smt. Dhanpatti filed an objection in the case on 20.8.1988 but Smt. Dhanpatti did not appear in the witness box. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 14.6.2013 found that due execution of the sale deed dated 20.1.1988 by Smt. Dhanpatti in favour of the respondents was proved by the marginal witnesses of the sale deed. Although it is alleged that permission order dated 8.1.1988 has been recalled by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but the order dated 10.10.1988 recalling the permission is an ex -parte order has been obtained by committing fraud. Since the registered sale deed has been executed as such the names of the transferees were liable to be mutated, accordingly, by order dated 14.6.2013 objections of the respondents were allowed and their names were directed to be mutated in the record.
(3.) THE petitioners filed an appeal registered (registered as Appeal No. 207/2013 -14). One Ram Achhaibar also filed another appeal (registered as Appeal No. 205 of 2013 -14). Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 20.8.2014 dismissing both the appeals. The petitioners filed Revision No. 194/133 of 2014 -15, Vidya Devi filed Revision No. 195/134 of 2014 -15 and Ram Achhaibar and others filed Revision No. 199/138 of 2014 -15. The revisions were heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 23.2.2015 found that the order of the Consolidation Officer is based upon the registered sale deed of which due execution has been proved. The order does not suffer from any illegality as the petitioners could not adduce any evidence to disprove that the sale deed was not executed by Smt. Dhanpatti and on this finding the revisions, were dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Consolidation Officer has not given proper opportunity of evidence to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioners could not adduce their oral evidence. The execution of the sale deed was denied by Smt. Dhanpatti herself. In such circumstances, sale deed was not liable to be relied upon. The permission granted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 8.1.1988 has already been recalled by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 10.10.1988 as such in view of section 45 -A of the Act the sale deed was void. All these grounds were raised in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in default on 26.3.2014. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the order on the same day on which 30.4.2014 was the date fixed and on that day the case was adjourned to 9.7.2014 and thereafter 27.8.2014 was the date fixed. The appeal was dismissed on 20.8.2014. The petitioners have raised all these grounds before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but he has not adverted to the grounds raised by the petitioners and dismissed the revision.;