N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The land in dispute was recorded in the basic year in the name of the Petitioner. One Chirkut was the tenure -holder of the land in dispute. He died in 1964 leaving Smt. Adra, Respondent No. 2, as his widow and Smt. Kilhati the Appellant as his daughter. Smt. Adra, Respondent No. 2, filed an objection alleging that being the widow of Chirkut she was entitled to be mutated over the land in dispute and that the name of the Petitioner had wrongly been recorded. The case of the Petitioner, on the other hand, was that Respondent No. 2 on the death of Chirkut remarried her brother -in -law Ram Samujh so that she lost all interest in the land in dispute and the Petitioner being the daughter of Chirkut was rightly recorded in village papers. It 'appears that Respondent No. 2 had also executed a sale deed in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ram Samujh on 18th July, 1966, for a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. From a perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer it appears that it was registered document. Rs. 500/ - were said to have been paid at the time of registration and Rs. 500/ -, were acknowledged to have been received earlier. The Consolidation Officer after taking the evidence produced by the parties into consideration recorded a finding that Respondent No. 2 had remarried Ram Samujh and consequently she had lost her right in the land in dispute. He accordingly dismissed the objection of Respondent No. 2. This order was upheld on appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), A revision was filed thereafter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on 16th September, 1971. The Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to have taken the view that since Ram Samujh had already a living wife he could not remarry Respondent No. 2 legally. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) IT was urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was nothing on the record to indicate as to whether when Respondent No. 2 remarried Ram Samujh the latter had a living wife at that point of time. According to learned Counsel, it may be that he may have married a second wife subsequently and in this view of the matter it was not right for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to take the view that the remarriage was invalid. In my opinion this submission has no substance. As is apparent from the order of the Consolidation Officer it was the Petitioner's own case that on the death of Chirkut, Respondent No. 2 remarried her sister's husband. From the case of the Petitioner herself, therefore, it is apparent that Ram Samujh was the husband of the sister of Respondent No. 2. The said sister of Respondent No. 2 is still alive. It is thus clear that when Respondent No. 2 is said to have remarried Ram Samujh the latter had at that point of time a living wife and the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot, therefore, be assailed. It was then urged that as it is apparent from the record Respondent No. 2 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Ram Samujh in respect of the land in dispute on 18th July, 1966. The effect of the registered sale deed was that title in the property passed on to Ram Samujh and if at. all it was only Ram Samujh who could have filed an objection against the entry of the Petitioner's name in the basic year records. Respondent No. 2, had no interest left in the property after the execution of the sale deed and as such she was not competent to file the objection. According to learned Counsel, since Ram Samujh admittedly did not file any objection, Respondent No. 2. who in the eye of law was a stranger so far as the land in dispute was concerned after the execution of the sale deed by her, had no locus standi to file an objection against the entry of the Petitioner's name in the basic year records. Reliance was placed on K. Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1974 ALJ 552 wherein it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that only a person who had a locus standi could file an objection and the name of the recorded tenure holder cannot be ordered to be deleted on an objection by a stranger. In my opinion this submission is well founded. From a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it, however, appears that Respondent No. 2 had denied the execution of the sale deed. On behalf of the Petitioner it was stated that the sale deed could not be upheld because it had been executed for inadequate consideration. The sale deed cannot be treated as invalid only on the plea raised by the Petitioner that it was for inadequate consideration. In so far as the plea of Respondent No. 2 that she did not execute the sale deed at all, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record any finding. This was crucial question upon which was dependent the right of Respondent No. 2 to file the objection which she did challenging the correctness of the entry of the Petitioner's name in the basic year. The order of the Dy. D.G. therefore, deserves to be quashed on this ground alone and a direction issued to him to decide the revision afresh.
(3.) THE Petitioner has raised some other pleas also in support of the writ petition. Since, however the Deputy Director of Consolidation is being directed to decide the revision afresh and it would be open to the Petitioner to raise all the points before him, I do not consider it necessary to record any finding on those pleas.;