Ram Surat Ram, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh alongwith Sri D.K. Srivastava for contesting respondents -2 and 3. The aforementioned writ petitions have been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.1.2015, allowing the revisions of respondents -2 and 3 and setting aside orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.4.2014, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of inheritance of properties of Ram Harakh. The petitioners are brothers' sons of Ram Harakh while Smt. Rajwanta (respondent -2) is widow of Ram Harakh and Uma Shankar (respondent -3) is the daughter's son of Ram Harakh. The petitioners derive their title on the basis of Will dated 21.2.1983, allegedly executed by Ram Harakh in favour of Rameshar, Muniram and Ram Chandar, (now represented by the petitioners). Smt. Rajwanta, (respondent -2) denied execution of the Will dated 21.2.1983 and claimed that after death of Ram Harakh, she inherited share of Ram Harakh in the land in dispute. Uma Shankar (respondent -3) derives his title on the basis of gift deed dated 28.9.1993 executed by Smt. Rajwanta, in his favour. It is admitted between the parties that Smt. Rajwanta is widow of Ram Harakh and Uma Shankar is daughter's son of Ram Harakh. In basic consolidation year names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute. Smt. Rajwanta filed an objection for recording her name as an heir of Ram Harakh, claiming her 1/4 share. Subsequently, Uma Shankar also filed an objection for recording his name over the land in dispute on the basis of gift deed dated 28.9.1993 executed by Smt. Rajwanta in his favour. The petitioners filed an objection claiming themselves to be heirs of Ram Harakh on the basis of Will dated 21.2.1983. The properties of the parties are situated in villages Didoha, Naudadrani, Dadwa and Khiroghat. All these objections were consolidated and tried together by Consolidation Officer.
(3.) BEFORE Consolidation Officer, 22.9.2004 was the date fixed. On that day Muniram, Banshraj and Bhagwandas did not appear. The Consolidation Officer dismissed their objections in default and proceeded ex -parte against them in the objections of respondent -2 and 3 and fixed 16.10.2004, for recording evidence of Uma Shankar. According to the petitioners they filed an application for recall of the order dated 22.9.2004 which was allowed and the order dated 22.9,2004 was set aside. However, the cases were regularly adjourned time to time up to 2013. Although in the order dated 22.9.2004, 16.10.2004 was the date fixed for recording the evidence of Uma Shankar but admittedly statement of Uma Shankar was not recorded. Subsequently, it was noticed by the petitioners that recall application filed by them for recalling the order dated 22.9.2004 was not traceable in the records of the cases. Then they filed another application on 1.4.2013 along with delay condonation application, for recall of the order dated 22.9.2004. In this applications, it has been stated that orders dated 22.9.2004 had already been recalled on the application moved by them but the application was misplaced. As thereafter, general dates were fixed and the case was adjourned time to time as such the fact relating to misplacing the application could not be noticed. In such circumstances the delay in filing the recall application was liable to be condoned. The application was heard by the Consolidation Officer who by the order dated 30.12.2013 dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as recall application. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.1.2014 decided the cases on merit and the objections of respondents 2 and 3 have been allowed.;