S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents even though the case was taken up in the revised list. Only learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard.
(2.) Since much before Zamindari abolition i.e. Since 1323 Fasli till basic year agricultural land in dispute was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Rasool, grand father of the petitioners. Original respondent No. 4 Azimullah was son of Saeed, real brother of Rasool and respondents 5 to 7 are sons of Fida Husain, who was son of Jan Mohammad, real brother of Rasool. After start of consolidation proceedings contesting respondents, who are descendants of Fida Husain and Jan Mohammad filed objections before the Consolidation Officer to the effect that Saeed, Jan Mohammad and Rasool, three brothers constituted joint family, hence Saeed, and Jan Mohammad had also share in the agricultural property of Rasool. Consolidation Officer, before whom cases were registered as Case Nos. 2427, 2428 and 2429, allowed the objections on 3.2.1976 and directed that the names of the petitioners shall be removed from the revenue records and names of contesting respondents shall be entered. (C.O. directed to expunge the names of petitioners from the revenue records, even though they were found to be co-sharers, on the ground that in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. only contesting respondents had been found to be in possession). Against the said judgment, appeal No. 211/422 was filed, which was dismissed by Settlement Officer. Consolidation, Deoria on 28.12.1976, against which, Revision No. 1048 / 1540 was filed, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria on 24.7.1981. Thereafter an application for correction/review was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was also dis missed on 25.8.1985, hence this writ petition.
(3.) Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly held in his order dated 24.7.1981 that question of joint family does not arise among Muslims and that agricultural property in dispute was exclusively the property of Rasool and it was so entered in the revenue records. However, claim of the petitioners was denied on the ground that in between the parties proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. had taken place, which terminated in favour of the respondents in 1964 and in pursuance of that order respondents were delivered possession in 1964 itself. Said order passed under section 145 Cr.P.C. was challenged in suit No. 396 under section 229-B U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act instituted in 1966. The said suit abated after start of consolidation proceedings in 1974. D.D.C. in its judgment dated 24.7.1981 wrongly mentioned that suit was instituted in 1971. On the basis of this on wrong assumption Deputy Director of Consolidation held that suit having been filed after more than three years from the order passed under section 145 Cr.P.C., respondents matured their rights over the land in dispute and right of the petitioner extinguished. Actually, the suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been filed in 1966 and not in 1971. In order to get the said typing mistake corrected application was filed by the petitioners before D.D.C. Through order dated 25.8.1981 Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly held that in his earlier order dated 24.7.1981 the year of filing of suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had wrongly been mentioned as 1971 and it was a typing mistake. Deputy Director of Consolidation corrected the said year as 1966 after cutting the year 1971 by his own hands in his original judgment dated 24.7.1981. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that apart from correction of the date he could not do any thing else as he has no power to review.;