R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of certain consolidation proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the decision of this petition are brief indeed. Ram Kumar and his brother Ram Swarup were the sirdars of the land in dispute. They deposited ten times of the rent and became the bhumidhars. The rent was deposited on 5 -1 -1960. On 6 -1 -1960, Ram Kumar transferred his share by a registered sale deed to the Petitioner Shiv Baran. It may be stated here that although the ten times rent was deposited on 5th January, the bhumidhari Sanad was issued to Ram Kumar and Ram Swaroop on 11 -3 -1960. On the basis of the sale deed the Petitioner Shiv Baran got the mutation made in his favour. During the consolidation proceedings Ram Kumar, who is the Respondent No. 5, and Ram Pratap and Ram Kripal, sons of Ram Swaroop, who had in the meantime died, filed objections challenging the mutation in favour of the Petitioner on various grounds including the ground that the sale deed obtained by him from Ram Kumar was fraudulent. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) upheld the claim of the Petitioner, but the Dy. Director of Consolidation on second appeal decided against the Petitioner on the ground that Ram Kumar had no right to transfer his interest in the land in favour of the Petitioner on 6 -1 -1960 as the bhumidhari sanad was issued to him on 11 -3 -1960. According to him, Ram Kumar became a bhumidhar only on 11 -3 -1960 and as such he was incompetent to transfer his bhumidhari rights at an earlier date. The Petitioner then went up in revision Under Section 48 of the Act. The Joint Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision by his order dated 27 -4 -1963, taking the view that the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction even though a second view might be possible. The present writ petition is directed against this order of the Joint Director of Consolidation and the earlier order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 12 -10 -1962.
(3.) THE only point argued before me by the Learned Counsel for the parties is as to whether the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner is void because of the fact that Ram Kumar had not been granted the bhumidhari sanad on 6 -1 -1960, the date of the execution of the sale deed.;