Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Writ Petition No.4611(Cons.) of 1981 has been filed challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities arising out of proceedings under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1953').
(2.) It is not out of place to mention that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.) dated 8.5.1981 was also challenged by one Zaibunnisa (respondent no.2 herein) by means of Writ Petition No.4799(Cons.) of 1981. This writ petition was connected with the said writ petition, but somehow got de-linked. The writ petition of Zaibunnisa was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.8.2009. In the said writ petition the petitioners of this writ petition, their legal heirs, opposite party no.1 and his legal heirs were arrayed as opposite parties. Suffice it to say that the said judgment was accepted by all the parties and was not put to challenge. More of it in the later part of the judgment.
(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Consolidation Officer had rightly determined the rights of the parties. Bhumidhari certificate had been issued in favour of Abdul Razzaq and it is on this basis that Bhumidhari rights were determined in his favour by the consolidation officer, but the S.O.C. and D.D.C. erroneously upturned his findings. It was contended that Jafar was merely a Matehdar. The Zamindar re-settled the tenancy rights in favour of Abdul Razzaq i.e. how his name came to be recorded in the revenue records. Thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable.;