- (1.) This is a petition Article 226 and 227 of Constitution arising (sic) under the U.P. (sic) Holdings Act.
(2.) The opposite party Ranjit was a Bhumidhar in village Gagaur in the district of Muzaffarnagar. He executed a deed of gift on 29-1-1953 in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners applied for mutation of names in the court of Tahsildar, Kairana. During the pendency of the mutation proceedings, consolidation of holdings proceedings started in the village Gagaur and in other villages of Tahsil Kairana, and the case was transferred to the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The proceedings first came before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. He refused to mutate the names of the Petitioners on the ground that the gift deed was not a valid document. Against this order there was an appeal before the Consolidation Officer and he dismissed the appeal observing that the question of title could not be gone into in those proceedings and that the Petitioners should get the validity of the gift deed determined in a civil court.
(3.) Later on a statement of plots and tenure-holders was prepared and published Under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Upon the publication of this statement the Petitioners again applied to the Assistant Consolidation Officer objecting to the entry of the name of the opposite party Ranjit in the statement and praying that their names be entered in the statement instead of that of the opposite party. The Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted the record of the case to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer held that the Petitioners' names should have been entered in the statement on the basis of the gift deed. A question arose before him whether the matter involved a question of title and he was of the view that the matter did not involve such a question. Against his decision the opposite party appealed to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and rejected the application of the Petitioners. He also did not refer the question to the civil court Under Section 12 of the Act. Against the order of the Settlement Officer the Petitioners filed a revision before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, who rejected the revision. The Petitioners have now come up to this Court and have urged that the dispute related to a question of title and should have been referred to the civil court for decision by the arbitrator. We think the contention of the Petitioners is correct.;