Rajes Kumar - (1.) PRESENT writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.5.2008, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar by which he allowed the revision of respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has executed the sale deed dated 16.4.1982 in respect of gata No. 884, rakba 1-0-0, gata No. 865, rakba No. 2-0-0 and gata No. 2734, rakba 0-16-10 one third portion, on the basis of which their names have been recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.4.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed appeal No. 781, which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.1990 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to see whether the permission under Section 5C of Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") has been obtained or not. In pursuance thereof, Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 19.11.1996 in case No. 727 in favour of the respondents. Petitioner again filed appeal. Settlement Officer, Consolidation again remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer. In pursuance of the appellate order, Consolidation Officer again passed the order dated 3.11.2003 for recording the name of the respondents on the basis of the sale deed dated 16.4.1982. Petitioner filed appeal No. 2151, which was allowed and the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents filed revision No. 205, which has been allowed by the impugned order. From the perusal of the record, Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that permission for sale has been granted. He further held that the claim was on the basis of the registered sale deed. The burden was on Mahmood to prove that his signature was not genuine, which he failed to do so. Consolidation Officer has also considered the statement of the witnesses and has held that the respondents were the purchasers of the land in dispute against the sale deed dated 16.4.1982. Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not executed the sale deed. The signature on the sale deed was not genuine. He further submitted that the permission under Section 5C of the Act had not been given by the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has recorded a categorical finding that on perusal of the record, it is clear that the permission has been given by Consolidation Officer. On the appreciation of the evidence on record and the statement of the witnesses further held that the sale deed was registered and the petitioner was not able to prove that thumb impression was not genuine. Finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is finding of fact, based on the appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse and arbitrary.;