RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the revisional Court dated 06.04.1987. The facts of the case in brief are that one Thakurdin was the original tenure holder. Smt. Rajana was his wife. After the death of Thakurdin it is not in dispute that her name was recorded the tenure holder. The petitioners herein claim that Smt. Ranjana had executed a sale deed in favour of their father Shri Bhagole, on 03.12.1969. Based thereon his name was mutated in the revenue records on 13.02.1970. One Smt. Pranpati alleging herself to be the daughter of Smt. Ranjana filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the year 1970 claiming a declaration of rights in respect of holdings of Shri Thakurdin which had been bequeathed to Smt. Ranjana alleging that on the date of execution of alleged sale deed dated 03.12.1969 Smt. Ranjana had already expired, therefore, the transaction was a fraudulent one. In the said suit it is said that the sale deed was proved and suit was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed before the Commissioner. While the matter was pending before the Commissioner notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 was issued and as a consequence, in view of Section 5 thereof, the suit proceedings which were pending at the appellate level, stood abated. The legal position in this regard has already been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 2493 and there is no dispute in this regard.
(3.) Thereafter, in the consolidation proceedings Smt. Pranpati filed objection under Section 9 claiming title as earlier. The Consolidation Officer after opportunity to the parties considered the evidence adduced before him and accepted the objections of Smt. Pranpati while rejecting the claim of Bhagole. Being aggrieved the father of the petitioners, namely, Bhagole filed an appeal before the S.O.C. The S.O.C. allowed the appeal.;