K.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Agra, dated 10-9-73 in revision no. 1137, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Dhani Ram v. Lakhan Singh and others.
(2.) IN the basic year the disputed Khata no. 22 was recorded in the names of Dhani Ram, Mani Ram and Kalyan. Kalyan had died and his heirs were vidya Ram Suckh Dayal and Jai Ram. Lakhan and Raja Ram had filed an objection claiming 2/3rd share in the disputed Khata as they were auction purchasers of the share of Dhani Ram and Kalyan. The Assistant Consolida­tion Officer had decided the case ex parte but in appeal the order was set aside and the Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 12-5-70 accepted the claim of Lakhan Singh and Raja Ram auction purchasers to the extent of 2/3rd share in the disputed Khata and ordered their names to be recorded over the aforesaid share. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer, Dhani Ram preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 7-9-70. Thereafter Dhani Ram preferred the aforesaid revision petition which was allowed by the D.D.C. through his judgment dated 10-9-73 and the claim of the auction purchasers was rejected. Now the petitioners have come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitu­tion and they have challenged the order of the revisional court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the D.D.C. has patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioners, without considering the effect of sale certificate in their favour. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized that even if the decree was a fraudulent decree in pursuance whereof the petitioners had purchased the 2/3rd share in the disputed Khata, their claim should not be negatived unless the sale certificate had been cancelled by a competent court in a proper proceeding.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted before me that when the decree was set aside the sale of the disputed land in favour of the auction purchasers would be of no effect and the D. D. C. was fully justified in not recognizing the claim of present petitioners (auction purchasers).;