B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7.8.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference Under Sec. 43(3) of the U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act (for shop the Act).
(2.) The antecedents disclosed in this case are sad affairs. The Petitioner purchased Plot Nos. 1320, 1295, 1350, 1374 and 1321 from one" ham banauur Singh and Smt. Deoki Kumari. Alter the vendors had obtained the Bnumidnari Sanad a registered sale deed was executed. But immediately after the aforesaid sale deed the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Ceiling Act) was enforced, with the result the Petitioner's name could not be mutated over the aforesaid plots, except plot No. 1374. These plots were declared as surplus land of Kam Banadur Singh and Smt. Deoki Kumari tenure holders, the vendors. The Petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as a party in me proceedings Under Sec. 10 of the Ceiling Act alleging that as he has purchased me land be.oie the en. oi cement of the Ceiling Act, hence these plots cannot be deemed to be mat of the vendors nor these plots could be declared surplus, rattier a notice Under Sec. 10(2) of the Ceiling Act must have been served on the Petitioner. But the Petitioners application for impleadment was rejected. Thereafter Petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was ailed and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act. In the meanwhile the village where the plots were situated, tame under the provisions of the Act in 1964. The consolidation authorities in view of the earlier decision of the presented Authority under the Ceiling Act, entered the name of the State Government only over plot No. 1320, 1350, 1295, only. But in respect of plot No. 1320 an area of only 10 Dhurs was recorded where -as the actual area of this plot was 3 bighas 12 bis was and 15 biswansis, the whole of which was declared as surplus and the whole of which was purchased by the Petitioner. Plot No. 132 t, no -v ever, was not entered in the name of the State Government even though the Prescribed Authority declared this plot also as surplus land. But alter the remand from the appellate court as stated above, the Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.11.1968 (certified copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit), held that all the plots purchased by the Petitioner were excluded from the holding of the vendors. It was further held that these plots belong to the Petitioner as he has purchased them by the aforesaid registered sale deed. The Parwana to that effect was also ordered to be sent to the consolidation authorities to enter the name of the Petitioner in the revenue papers during the consolidation proceedings. The consolidation authorities has given effect to that Parwana and in C.H. Form 23 the Petitioners' name was entered, but while the proceedings Under Sec. 20 of the Act for allotment of chak were in progress, somehow plot Nos. 1320 and 1321 were omitted from the name of the Petitioner. The Petitioner made an enquiry as to how his name was not entered in proceedings Under Sec. 20 of the Act over these plots. The Petitioner was advised to make an application to that effect and unless overall these plots the name of the State was recorded these plots cannot be recorded in the name of the Petitioner and thereupon a reference purporting to be Under Sec. 48(3) of the Act should be made. The Petitioner moved an application as directed on 13.4.1971. On that application the Settlement Officer (consolidation) initiated proceedings for reference and directed the Consolidation Officer to submit the report who in his turn, directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to submit the report and ultimately the Consolidator submitted a report. Thereafter the matter remained pending for about three years and as late as on 4.1.1974 the Consolidator asked the Petitioner to make an endorsement on the application. The Petitioner did the same and ultimately a report was submitted for reference. But it was to the effect that the Petitioner should have made an application at the stage of Sec. 9 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who dropped the entire proceedings of reference by the impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the plots were purchased by the Petitioner, but by mistake they were entered in the name of the vendors during the continuance of proceedings under the Ceiling Act and thereafter even after the order of the Prescribed Authority that these plots may be entered in the name of the Petitioner, the said order was not carried out by the consolidation authorities and the Petitioner's name could not be entered and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in rejecting the reference It was further urged that it was in any case the mistake of either the ceiling authorities or the consolidation authorities in not giving effect to the registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner which became final.;