- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Shanti Devi, respondent in both the writ petitions.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004 and learned counsel for the parties have agreed that both the writ petitions be finally decided. For deciding both the writ petitions, it is necessary to refer the facts and pleadings of Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004. One Jagdish Narain Dwivedi was the original tenure holder of agricultural land of village Gothaura, district Mirzapur. Khata No. 32 was recorded in the basic year in the name of Jagdish son of Ram Lakhan. Jagdish died on 3rd October, 1997. An objection under Section 9a (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by the petitioner with regard to plots of Khata No. 32, i. e. , Plot Nos. 66a, 66b, 72 and 241, area 1 bigha, 15 biswa and 6 dhur. The Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise passed an order for recording the name of the petitioner in place of Jagdish, deceased vide his order dated 9th December, 1998. Respondent No. 3, Shanti Devi, filed an appeal against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9th December, 1998 before the Settle ment Officer of Consolidation. The appellant stated in the appeal that Jagdish Narain Dwivedi, who was working in Collectorate, Varanasi was the husband of the appellant, who died on 3rd October, 1997. The appellant is the only heir of the deceased. She was busy in taking steps for pension etc. of late Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and when she contacted the Lekhpal for mutating her name, she came to know about the order dated 9th December, 1998. The appellant stated in her ap peal that no information or notice was received by the appellant and exparte order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set-aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter to the Consoli dation Officer for fresh decision after framing issues and taking evidence. A revi sion was filed by petitioner against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolida tion. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision and while dis missing the revision set-aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9th December, 1998 as well as of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 17th May, 2003 and directed that name of Shanti Devi be recorded in place of Jagdish Narain, deceased. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also directed that file be consigned after Amal Daramad of her name. Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) WRIT Petition No. 46780 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner, Shailendra Dwivedi praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 4 not to demolish the house of the petitioner situate in village Gothaura, Tahsil Chunar, district Mirzapur and further for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to restrain respondent No. 4 from interfering in possession of the petitioner over Plots No. 66a, 66b, 72 and 241 of Khata No. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, contended that Deputy Director of Consolidation committed er ror in setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation while dismiss ing the revision filed by the petitioner. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation having remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought not to have directed for recording the name of Smt. Shanti Devi. It is contended that petitioner could not got any opportunity to lead evidence either before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence deciding the dispute between the parties by Deputy Di rector of Consolidation finally was unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is son of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi and this fact was also admitted by Shanti Devi while moving the succession application for withdrawing the amount laying in the name of Jagdish Narain Dwivedi in the State Bank of India.;