- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20-1-97 passed by respon dent No. 1 Dy. Director of Consolidation, whereby revisions filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', were dismissed.
(2.) SUBJECT-matters of dispute in the present case is the Khatas No. 24 and 52 of village Chaura district Saharanpur, hereinafter referred to as the land in dis pute. In the basic year, the land in dispute was recorded in the names of Ram Dia, Mahabir and Raj Singh s/o Balbeer and Smt. Mangala Devi. Four sets of objections were filed before the Asstt. Consolidation Of ficer. First objection was filed by Navin Kumar s/o Ram Daya for mutation of his name in place of his father over 1/3 share, second by Mahabeer, who claimed that three sons of Dalbeer Singh i. e. Mahabeer, Raj Singh and Ram Daya have equal shares i. e. 1/3 share each, third objection was filed by Smt. Mangala Devi and Raj Singh, who claimed that Smt. Mangala was entitled to 1/2 share and other 1/2 own by Ram Daya, Mahabir and Raj Singh and fourth objection was filed by Sanjay Singh s/o Mahabeer, who claimed his Bhumidhari rights in plots No. 240 to 243, 280, 25 to 258 of Khata No. 52 measuring 11 Bighas 5 Biswas 19 Biswansi on the basis of the sale- deed dated 22-7-81 executed by Suresh Kumar and Virendra Kumar and sale-deed dated 30-7-81 ex ecuted by Raj Singh in his favour. The objections were contested by the parties, who had also led evidence in support of their cases. The dispute before the Consolidation Officer was thus regard ing the determination of shares of the par ties in the land in dispute and the validity of the sale-deeds, which were basis of the claim of Sanjay Singh. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 6-9-89 rejected the claims/objections filed by Sanjay Singh holding that the sale- deeds were executed after Notification under Section 4 of the Act without prior permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, they were, there fore, invalid. He has also determined the shares of the parties in the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the judgment and or ders passed by the Consolidation Officer, three appeals were filed by Sanjay Singh, Raj Singh and Smt. Mangala. The Settle ment Officer of Consolidation by its judg ment and order dated 3-9-94 allowed the appeal filed by Sanjay Singh holding that the sale-deeds relied upon by him were valid. He was thus entitled to his share in the land in dispute on the basis of the same. The shares of the parties were also determined. Challenging the validity of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, three revisions were filed, two by Raj Singh and the third by Smt. Mangala. The Dy. Director of Consolidation dismissed all three revisions and upheld the validity of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Con solidation. Challenging the validity of the order passed by Dy. Director of Consolida tion, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. A caveat on behalf of Sanjay Singh and Mahabir was filed by Sri A. I. Naqvi, advocate.
(3.) 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the determination of shares of the parties in the land in dispute by the authorities below. He has only chal lenged the validity of the orders passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation and Set tlement Officer of Consolidation in so far they upheld the validity of the sale-deeds relied upon by Sanjay Singh. It was con tended that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 22-6-81 and the sale-deeds were executed after the date of Notification without ob taining permission from the Settlement Of ficer of Consolidation. In view of provisions of Section 5 of the Act, the sale-deeds were invalid and were liable to be ignored.;