DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 20.09.1991, passed by the Consolidation Officer, whereby the application seeking amendment moved by the petitioner in the application for mutation has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.05.1992, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.1991, passed by the Consolidation Officer, was also dismissed. The land in dispute was, admittedly, recorded in the name of late Chauthi, who during the consolidation operation is said to have expired. The petitioner appears to have moved an application seeking mutation of her name on the basis of succession claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi. Respondent nos.3 and 4 also moved an application seeking mutation of their names on the basis of a will-deed. Both the mutation applications were clubbed together and proceedings thereof have been going on before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner while moving the application seeking mutation which is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition has disclosed the date of death of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi to be 31.08.1980, however, an application on 29.08.1986 appears to have been moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the said application wherein it was prayed that in the application for mutation in place of 31.08.1980 as the date of death of the tenure holder late Chauthi it should be read as 31.05.1980. The said application was contested by the respondent nos.3 and 4 stating inter alia that the amendment being sought in the application for mutation by the petitioner is after thought and further that if such an amendment is permitted the very nature of the claim of the petitioner shall be altered and hence, such a prayer should not be acceded to. The Consolidation Officer after considering the respective submissions rejected the application moved by the petitioner seeking amendment by means of his order dated 20.09.1991 stating therein that by permitting the amendment in the application for mutation, the same will change the nature of the case and hence, such an amendment should not be permitted. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order dated 20.09.1991 passed by the Consolidation Officer by filing Revision Petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which too, has been dismissed by the revisional court by means of the order dated 19.05.1992. The revisional court has reiterated the reasons given by the Consolidation Officer and did not found merit in the application moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the application moved by her seeking mutation of her name in place of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record available herein.;