- (1.) By the order dated 19.3.2015, instruction has been called for from the Deputy Director of Consolidation how there is contrary endorsement in the order sheet. A written instruction has been submitted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the revision was dismissed on 1.12.2014 and such endorsement has also been made in the misilband register. However due to mistake of Reader, in the order sheet, the order allowing the revision has been mentioned. The proceeding is being taken for correction of the order sheet and for that purpose a show cause notice has been issued to the Reader. In such circumstances, the revision was not allowed.
(2.) Heard Sri Shailendra Singh for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.9.1994, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.3.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.12.2014 passed in the title proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) The petitioner filed an objection for recording his name over the land in dispute under Section 9 of the Act on the basis of alleged Will dated 12.3.1973 executed by Gubli Singh in his favour. On the other hand respondents filed an objection for recording their name on the basis of sale deed dated 20.1.1978 executed by Gubli Singh and Smt. Savitri Devi. The matters were consolidated and decided together. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 15.9.1994 found that due execution of the sale deed has been proved as such the sale deed will have priority over the Will. In such circumstances, the objection of the contesting respondents was allowed and their names were directed to be mutated over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 281/285 from the aforesaid order. The appellate court by order dated 18.3.2006 held that the validity of the sale deed has also been challenged in Civil Suit which was dismissed by the order dated 14.3.1984 and appeal from that decree has also been dismissed, otherwise also execution of sale deed was proved. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed by order dated 8.3.2006. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision registered as Revision No. 89/146 of 2014-15 in which the findings has been upheld and the revision was dismissed by order dated 1.12.2014. The counsel for the petitioner submits that against the appellate decree of civil court, a Second Appeal No. 19/2001 has been filed before this Court which is pending. Therefore the order of civil court has not become final. In such circumstances, no reliance could have been placed.;