Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) This petition seeks to quash the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation Under Sec. 48(3) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) Three parties are involved in the dispute. Jhillu and others may be referred as party No. 1. They are Respondents 1 to 4 in the present petition. The second party was Jokhu and others. They are Petitioners here. The third party was of Charbharan and Others, who are Respondents 5 to 10 in the writ petition. These three parties were co -sharers in Khata No. 961. On 10 -4 -1960 an order was passed purporting to be Under Sec. 10 -A of the Act as it stood after its amendment by Act V of 1954. This order was passed on some compromise and it purported to allot certain shares in the khata to the three parties. Thereafter an objection appears to have been filed by parties 1 and 2 before the Consolidation Officer Under Sec. 12 of the Act. These objections were decided on 3 -6 -61 by the Consolidation Officer. He held that parties 1 and 2 had a half share each in the khata. Party No. 3 was not impleaded in this proceeding, No objection was taken by any of the parties to their share or non impleadment. The courts also did not notice that one set of co sharers were not represented before it. Jhillu and others party No. 1 went up in appeal, but failed. The findings were confirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 2 -8 -1961. The Revision was dismissed on 27 -8 -1962. Jhillu and others, part No. 1, filed a writ petition in this Court, No. 3765 of 1962, which was also dismissed on 30th April, 1963. It is noticeable that in none of these appeals or revisions did the present Petitioners, who were contesting Respondents, took any objection that party No. 3, who were also co -sharers as such necessary parties, had not been impleaded and therefore the proceedings were invalid. In the meantime statement of proposals were published. Valuations were allotted to the various co -sharers in the khata. According to the Petitioners, the valuations were allotted in accordance with the order passed Under Sec. 10 -A. There is a dispute on it. According to the Respondents and the Deputy Director of Consolidation as mentioned in the impugned order, the allotment of valuation was not strictly in accordance with that order. There was some difference. It is not necessary to go into it, because that is not material. On 31 -3 -1962 the statement of proposals were confirmed Under Sec. 23(3) of the Act.
(3.) When the plots were being demarcated on the spot, party No. 1 Jhillu and others found that the matter is being proceeded on contrary to the orders passed in proceedings Under Sec. 12. They consequently made an application on 11 -2 -1965 for action being taken to effectuate the orders passed in proceedings Under Sec. 12. The Deputy Director called for a report. The Consolidation Officer's report was confirmed by the Settlement officer and has now been accepted by the Deputy Director by the impugned order. According to this report and orders the position is that at the time of the preparation of C.H. Form No. 20 a clerical mistake was committed by the authorities by joining up khata No. 961 with another khata No. 485. It is unnecessary to give the details. They are mentioned in the report of the Settlement Officer dated 25 -8 -1966 because of which the statement of proposals were not in accordance with the orders passed Under Sec. 12. The order Under Sec. 12 had specifically set aside the order passed Under Sec. 10 -A, but since party No. 3 was not impleaded in proceedings Under Sec. 12, the order Under Sec. 12 would not affect the shares allotted to party No. 3 in proceedings Under Sec. 10 -A. The authorities below then held that the proceedings Under Sec. 12 had to be given effect to because they were the last orders determining the title and shares of the parties. They are binding between the persons who were parties in those proceedings. Hence they will apply and operate on that part of the holding which remains after excluding the shares allotted to party No. 3. Since the ultimate finding was that parties Nos. 1 and 2 had an equal share, that will operate on that part of the holding No. 961 which remains after excluding from consideration the shares originally allotted to party No. 3. At this finding they have varied the statement of proposals and made necessary amendments.;