- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 6. 9. 1995 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Annexure 9 to the petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the petition, counter affidavit and other affidavits. The dispute relates to the land of Khata No. 24, situate in Mauja Haradfatehpur, Pargana Thana Bhawan, Tahsil Kerana, district Muzaffarnagar. In the basic year Kedar Singh, Ghanshyam Singh and Bir Singh (1/6th share) Smt. Swaroopi widow of Chamela Singh (1/4th share) and Udham Singh (1/4th snare) were recorded as Bhumidhar. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are transferees of Smt. Swaroopi widow of Chamela Singh vide registered sale-deed dated 30. 5. 1994 Annexure 1 to the petition. When consolidation operations started, an objection was filed by the contesting respondent Udham Singh praying that plot No. 2873 be recorded exclusively in his name and the shares of other co-sharers be given to them from other plots. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that Udham Singh in collusion with the consolidation staff added in the objection regarding an alleged agreement by a different ink which is apparent from the perusal of the objection. True copy of the objection of Udham Singh is Annexure 2. True copy of C. H. Form No. 5 pertaining to Smt. Swaroopi and her co-sharers which includes the land of disputed Khata is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. On this objection, the Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted a report on 15. 6. 1985, true copy of which is Annexure 4. It is alleged that this document established beyond doubt that Smt. Swaroopi had 1/4th share in the land of Khata No. 24. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Udham Singh and plot No. 2873 was given to him exclusively and thereafter the Consolidation Officer determined the shares of various parties in which he determined the share of Smt. Swaroopi as 1/4th share. True copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer is Annexure 5. It is alleged in paragraph 11 that before the Consolidation Officer no allegation was made by Udham Singh and others regarding the alleged agreement. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, Udham Singh and others filed an appeal on 31. 12. 1986. True copy of the memo of appeal is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Before the appellate Court, Udham Singh for the first time made an allegation about the alleged agreement dated 26. 10. 1961. The S. O. C. dismissed this appeal on 17. 5. 1989 vide Annexure 7. The S. O. C. found that the terms of the alleged agreement dated 26. 10. 1961 had not been fulfilled by Udham Singh and others and there was no question of acting upon the alleged agreement. It is alleged in paragraphs 18 and 19 that although the appeal was dismissed no notice was given to Smt. Swaroopi. Aggrieved against the order of the S. O. C. , a revision No. 515 of 1989, was filed by Udham Singh vide Annexure 8. The revision was allowed by the D. D. C. vide order dated 6. 9. 1995 vide Annexure 9 to the petition. Aggrieved this petition has been filed in this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the S. O. C. had held that the alleged agreement dated 26. 10. 1961 was not acted upon and this was a finding of fact which could not be validly reversed by the D. D. C. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1994 RD 290. The Supreme Court in that decision held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the S. O. C. This view has been followed by this Court in Krishna Pratap Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1996 (67) RD 216. In my opinion, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The S. O. C. has recorded a clear finding that the alleged agreement dated 26. 10. 1961 was not acted upon and this was a finding of fact. Hence the D. D. C. had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of fact.;