- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, where- under setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed in appeal and directing for the expunging of the names of Smt. Pushpa Devi and Kabul Singh from Khata Nos. S and 8-A the name of Raghubir Singh was ordered to be recorded as Bhumidhar determining his share to be one half and the share of the petitioner to be one half so far as khata No. 8 was concerned and the shere of the petitioner to be 1/3rd and that of Raghubir Singh to be 2/3rd so far as Khata No. 8a was concerned, the petitioner has now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.
(2.) I have heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. In the proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, an objection was filed by the petitioner claiming l/3rd share in Khata No. 8-A asserting that the remaining 2/3rd share was that of Smt. Pushpa Devi. It was further asserted that Narendra Kumar and Cyan Singh, the respondents No. 3 and 4 had no concern with the holdings pertaining to the aforesaid Khata. Another objection was filed by Smt. Pushpa Devi claiming 2/3rd share in Khata No. 8-A and remaining to be that of Ziley Singh, the petitioner. It was asserted that she had not transferred her interest in favour of Narendra Kumar and Gyan Singh. The third objection was filed by Raghubir Singh claiming that he had purchased 1/4th share of Narendra Kumar and 1/4th share of Gyan Singh in Khata No. 8 vide the sale-deed dated 3-10-1980 and was entitled to half share in the said Khata. He had prayed for recording of his name as bhumidhar in respect of half share of the holding pertaining to Khata No. 8. The Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that Smt Pushpa Devi had not transferred her interest in the land in dispute nor the alleged transferees had entered in the possession of the holdings of which they claimed to be the transferees. It was also found that Narendra Kumar and Gyan Singh had no right or interest which could be transferred in favour of Raghubir Singh and therefore, the sale-deed relied upon by him was legally in effectual.
(3.) ON the findings recorded by him, the Consolidation Officer directed that the names of Narendra Kumar and Gyan Singh be expunged from the revenue records pertaining to Khata Nos. 8 and 8-A and the name of Smt. Pushpa Devi be recorded, the objection of Raghubir Singh was also dismissed. The Consolidation Officer determined the share of Smt. Pushpa Devi to be one half in Khata No. 8 and the other half to be that of Ziley Singh. So far as Khata No. 8-A was concerned he determined the share of Smt. Pushpa Devi to be 2/3rd and that of Ziley Singhtobel/3rd. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Narendra Kumar and Gyan Singh filed an appeal. This appeal was confined to Khata No. 8-A. The appellant had placed reliance upon three sale-deeds alleged to have been executed by Smt. Pushpa Devi. One sale-deed was dated 16-5-1978, and the other sale-deeds were of the date 24-5-1978.;