Rajes Kumar - (1.) -By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut in Revision No. 59, Om Prakash v. Roop Ram and others and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.9.2008 passed in Revision No. 8, Om Prakash v. Room Ram and others.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are ; that the petitioners claimed that a sale deed dated 9.7.1984 was executed by Sri Om Prakash in respect of Khata No. 288 in favour of the father of petitioners No. 1 to 5. In the consolidation proceeding, the father of the petitioners No. 1 to 5 filed an application under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for the mutation of their names over the land of Khasra No. 288, village Aurang Nagar, Tehsil Sardhana, Meerut which was rejected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Meerut vide order dated 24.2.1986. THE petitioners against the aforesaid order preferred Appeal No. 360 of 1990, under Section 11 (1) of the Act which was dismissed on the ground that sale deed had not been proved by producing the witnesses and, therefore, mutation was not possible. Being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 2.12.1997 and the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation with the direction to decide the appeal afresh. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.12.2006 allowed the appeal of the petitioners and directed for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Accordingly, the petitioners moved application on 28.12.2006 for mutation. The Consolidation Officer allowed the said application on 29.12.2006 and directed for the mutation of the petitioners name. Om Prakash, respondent No. 3, filed Revision No. 8 of 2007, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 30.12.2006 against the order dated 29.12.2006 of the Consolidation Officer, Meerut. Sri Om Prakash has also filed Revision No. 59 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 23.12.2006. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the Revision No. 59 and set aside the order dated 23.12.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 24.2.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned in respect of the disputed sale deed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also allowed the Revision No. 8 of 2007, filed by Om Prakash and quashed the order dated 29.12.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sale deed dated 9.7.1984 was duly registered and it had not been cancelled by any competent court. He further submitted that Om Prakash in his statement has not categorically stated that he has not executed the alleged sale deed dated 9.7.1984 in respect of the land of Khata No. 288 in favour of the father of the petitioners No. 1 to 5, therefore, the remand of the case by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly unjustified.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 3 states that the petitioners failed to prove the genuineness of the sale deed dated 9.7.1984. He submitted that Om Prakash in his statement dated 5.12.1985 has categorically stated that he has only executed a sale deed in favour of Buddhu, son of Baroo, of land measuring 2-5-5 of Khata No. 169 and no other sale deed has been executed. In this way, he has denied to have executed any sale deed dated 9.7.1984 of Khata No. 288 in favour of the father of the petitioners No. 1 to 5. Therefore, the petitioners are wrong in saying that there was no dispute about the sale deed. He further submitted that the petitioners have filed belated writ petition challenging the order dated 29.10.2007 after a year. He further submitted that since the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 23.12.2006 has been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the consequential order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the mutation proceeding has also been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.9.2008. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners.;