B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 30 -08 -1974 (Annexure L) passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation Gyanpur.
(2.) THE facts leading to this petition are that one Mohammad Fakhar. Respondent No. 6 was the tenure holder of Chak No. 213. On 24 -08 -1966 he is alleged to have executed an unregistered agreement of sale in favor of the Petitioners. In the meanwhile a power of attorney was executed by the Respondent No. 6 in favor of Mst. Batul and she was given power to execute the sale deed in respect of the land in dispute. Ten times rental was deposited in view of Section 134 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Relorms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for acquiring btiumidhari rights on 28 -10 -1968 and on the same date a registered sale deed "as also executed in favor of Nanku, Respondent No 3. Later on Mohammad Fakhar. Respondent No. 6 executed a registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner on 04 -09 -1961 artier the sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 3. Both the vendees, the Petitioners and also the Respondent No. 3 applied for mutation of the sale deed during the consolidation operation. It was alleged by the Petitioners that as they had an agreement for sale in their favor, hence no sale deed could have been executed in favor of respondent No. 3. The case of Respondent No. 3 was that the power of attorney was executed by Respondent No. 6 in favor of Respondent No. 7 on 06 -09 -1968 and the same was not cancelled by him, hence the sale deed in favor of the Petitioners could not have been executed by him (Mohd. Fakhar). It was further alleged that after depositing ten times rental the Sanad Bbumidhari was prepared and issued in the same of the tenure holder on 13.11.1968, hence that would date back to the date of deposit and this means that the sale deed executed on 28 -10 -1968 in favor of Respondent No. 3 was legal and thereafter no right was left in the vendor to execute another sale deed in favor of the Petitioner. It was further alleged that the claim of the Petitioners was time barred.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer decided the case in favor of Respondent No. 3 holding that the sale deed dated 28 -10 -1968 was legal and the name of vendor Mohammad Fakhar shall be expunged and that of Nanku, Respondent No. 3 shall be entered. The Petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by an Order dated 17 -11 -1972. Against that order the revision by Respondent No. 3 was allowed by the impugned Order dated 30 -08 -1974.;