- (1.) Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra for the petitioner and Sri SC Verma for the respondents. CM Application (Substitution) No. 389327 of 2014 has been filed to bring on record heirs of the sole petitioner, since deceased. The application is within time. The respondents have no objection. Accordingly, the said application is allowed. Let the substituted heirs be incorporated forthwith.
(2.) The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of the UP ZA and LR Act. The dispute in the writ petition relates to khata nos. 162 and 149, of village Gujarpur Gaharwar. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the orders dated 13.10.1982, 25.5.1981 and 11.1.1980, passed, respectively, by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, Fatehgarh. The land in question admittedly belonged to one Dular. The contesting respondent claims that he is son of Dular. Admittedly, the petitioner is daughter of Dular. In the basic year record, the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The contesting respondent Subedar filed objection under section 9A(2), claiming to be the son of Dular and, therefore, entitled to the property in dispute.
(3.) The petitioner denied that the objector Subedar was the son of Dular. She alleged that Subedar was the son of Gulab. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection. The name of the petitioner was ordered to be expunged and the name of Subedar was ordered to be recorded. This order has been affirmed in appeal and revision. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have illegally allowed the objection of the respondent relying upon an alleged compromise dated 30.8.1967, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have admitted the claim of Subedar in a mutation case, which pertained to village Amritpur and Udhranpur Lilapur. He contends that an admission made by Subedar in Mutation Case No. 8 regarding land of village Gujarpur Geharwar has not been taken in consideration; therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated. Further, he has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and she did not know or understand the contents of the compromise application filed in Mutation Case No. 7, wherein it was written that Subedar was son of Dular. On the basis of these averments, it has been contended that the admission was not binding upon the petitioner.;