Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.N. Tripathi, for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, holding brief of Sri Deo Prakash Singh, for respondent -2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.1.2015, passed in proceedings under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute relates to mutation of the names of respondents -2 to 4 over chaks 266, 268 and 272 of village Garhi, tappa Gagaha, tahsil Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur. During consolidation, aforementioned chaks were carved out in the names of Hansraji widow of Ramrup and Hem Chand son of Dubar. Pauhari Sharan, Ram Saran and Tulsi (respondents -2 to 4) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) through their guardian, Smt. Kadamiya (mother) filed an application (registered as case No. 291) under section 12 of the Act, for mutating their names as well as the name of Sri Shankar Ji (deity) over 1/2 share of Smt. Hansraji, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 12.10.1977 allegedly executed by Smt. Hansraji. It is alleged by the respondents that Assistant Consolidation Officer issued proclamation. Thereafter, Smt. Hansraji and Smt. Kadamiya appeared before Assistant Consolidation Officer on 24.12.1977, who recorded conciliation proceedings in presence of two members of Consolidation Committee, which was signed by them and on its basis he directed for mutation of the names of the respondents and Sri Shankar Ji (deity) over 1/2 share of Smt. Hansraji, over the chaks in dispute. Thereafter, Smt. Hansraji filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 171), on 16.10.1979, along with delay condonation application, which was allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 7.3.1981 and order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1977 was set aside and the matter has been remanded to Consolidation Officer to decide the mutation application on merit in accordance with law. The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 390). Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 27.10.1983 held that signatures of the members of Consolidation Committee were not found on the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1977. But reasons recorded by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in his order dated 7.3.1981 that (i) although Smt. Hansraji had executed sale deed in respect of her 1/2 share but her name was directed to be deleted from the entire chaks in dispute, (ii) no sale deed can be obtained by Sri Shankar Ji (deity) were incorrect. On these findings, he partly allowed the revision and send the record to Consolidation Officer, to complete the deficiency in the compromise.
(3.) THE respondents filed a writ petition (registered as Writ Petition No. 5532 of 1984) from the aforesaid order. This Court, by judgment dated 27.1.2006, held that Deputy Director of Consolidation had recorded contradictory findings. Once its was found that the conciliation proceeding was not signed by members of Consolidation Committee, he should have himself decided the validity of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1977. Similarly, if he was satisfied on merit, he should have decided the case finally, instead of remanding the case to Consolidation Officer. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.1983 was set aside and the matter has been remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh on merit.;