B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions arise out of similar facts involving similar question of law, hence it would be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 11059 of 1980 is against the order dated 20th July 1980 passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation, order dated 25th September, 1978 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 16th October 1971 passed by Consolidation Officer in proceedings Under Section 9A(2) of U.P. C.H. Act (for short the Act), Writ Petition No. 9127 of 1980 is directed against the order of the same date passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation an 1 the order dated 25th June 1977 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer.
(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and they are these. In the basic year the plots in chak No. 53 in village Mahen Babu and other plots No. 870 and 956 were entered in the name of Gajadhar and Harjeet Dubey. Smt. Rama Devi Respondent No. 4 filed objection Under Section 12 of the Act alleging that she had objected a gift deed dated 29th February 1960 from Gajadhar and Harjeet Dubey the recorded tenure holders hence her name may be entered in place of the donors but later on she made an application that her objection Under Section 12 may be treated as Under Section 9A(2) and made an application for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned and her objection was treated to be Under Section 9A(2). The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 16.10.1971 decided the case in her favour. It was ordered that her name may be entered in place of donors. In Writ Petition No. 9127 of 1980 the Assistant Consolidation Officer by his order dated 25.06.77 treating the case to be uncontested directed the name of Smt. Rama Devi to be entered in place of donors. After the death of Harjeet Dubey on 22.02.77 Petitioners came to learn about a gift deed in favour of Smt. Rama Devi and the order in her favour, hence they filed appeal against those orders on 23.09.77 and alleged that they were not made parties to the case and were heirs of Gajadhar and Harjeet Dubey donors (i.e. being father's brother's son) hence were entitled to succeed Under Section 177 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and donors had not in fact executed any gift deed in favour of Smt. Rama Devi and the gift deed was fictitious, forged and ante dated, and was never given effect to in revenue papers, nor donee entered into possession immediately after the gift deed, hence such gift deed was void and the name of donee may be expunged. An application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay was also Sled with allegations that Petitioners were not made parties to the case and they did not know either about the gift deed or orders of Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed and thereafter revision was also filed but met the same fate. Against these orders the present petitions have been filed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the Petitioners were not made parties by Smt. Rama Devi nor Petitioners were given any notice for proceedings Under Section 9A(2) even though they were heirs of donors and were entitled to inherit them, nor they had any knowledge. It is only after the death of Harjeet Dubey, when the donee tried to interfere in their possession that they came to know about the impugned orders, the delay was accordingly explained and it was prayed that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and same may be decided on merits. He relied on O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh : AIR 1984 SC 1744.;