Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Gupta for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31.5.2012 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.11.2014 passed in the proceeding arising under section 9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) THE dispute between the parties was in respect of khata No. 19 consisting of plot No. 160, area 7 acre of village Agaura, tehsil Mahrauni, district Lalitpur. In basic consolidation record the names of Kunjan Singh son of Anuruddha Singh and Gulab Singh son of Raghveer Singh were recorded over the land in dispute. Brijraj Singh son of Bhavani Singh, Raguveer Singh son of Bhavani Singh and Dangal Singh son of Madhav Singh jointly executed a sale -deed in respect of their 3/4 share in the land in dispute in favour of Kunjan Singh. On the basis of the sale -deed Kunjan Singh and Gopal Singh filed an objection under section 9 the Act for recording their names over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 20.7.2004 decided the matter on merit. Thereafter Kunjan Singh filed two appeals against the order of Consolidation Officer. It is alleged that during the pendency of the appeals Gopal Singh executed several sale deeds. Thereafter Kunjan Singh filed an application for impleadment of transferee Chandra Bhan Singh, father of the petitioners as opposite party in the appeals. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 17.7.2006 allowed the impleadment application. However, it is alleged that without issuing any notice to Chandra Bhan Singh, the matter was decided by Settlement Officer, Consolidation on merit by order dated 31.5.2012. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation in his judgment found that there had been a partition suit i.e. Suit No. 11 of 1965 under section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 between the parties in which plot No. 160, area 7 acre was given in the kurra of Brijraj Singh and Raghuveer Singh sons of Bhavani Singh. However, subsequently, the names of Gajraj Singh, Dangal Singh and Zalim Singh, sons of Madhav Singh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute although in partition they were not given share in the plot No. 160. Taking advantage of the entry Zalim Singh executed a sale -deed in favour of Gopal Singh. As the name of Zalim Singh was wrongly recorded as such on the basis of sale executed by Zalim Singh in favour of Gopal Singh, Gopal Singh did not get any right and the sale -deed was void. It has been further found that Gopal Singh executed a sale -deed in favour of Raghuveer Singh but since Gopal Singh himself had no right as such the sale deeds executed by him were held as void. On this finding the appeals were allowed and it has been held that the land in dispute was belonging to Brajraj Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Kunjan Singh and sale -deed executed by them in the name of Kunjan Singh was required to be recorded over the land in dispute and so far as the names of the persons, namely, Gajraj Singh, Dangal Singh and Zalim Singh are concerned, it has been held that their names were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute and they had no right to execute sale -deed. Accordingly, sale -deed executed by Zalim Singh in favour of Gopal Singh was void therefore, on the basis of sale -deed executed by him names of Gopal Singh, Udaveer Singh, Raguveer Singh, Jaiveer Singh and others were liable to be deleted from the land in dispute. Against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31.5.2012, two revisions were filed - one by Kunjan Singh and other by Suneel Kumar Singh. Both the revisions were consolidated and dismissed by the order dated 28.2.2013. Thereafter the petitioners also filed a revision against the order dated 31.5.2012. The revision of the petitioners was heard separately and by a separate order dated 29.11.2014 the revision of the petitioners has also been dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that although Chandra Bhan Singh, father of the petitioners was impleaded as opposite party in the appeal by order dated 17.7.2006 even then no notice of appeal was issued to him and he was not given opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed a revision against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation but it has been illegally dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that earlier revisions filed by Kunjan Singh and Sunil Kumar Singh had already been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 28.2.2013 in which order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was confirmed. Therefore, no fresh examination on merit is required. He submits that the petitioners were bona fide transferee and were entitled to be heard. Therefore, revision of the petitioners was liable to be decided on merit but Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dismissed it on technical ground that revisions filed by other persons were dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.;