K.P.Singh - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and opposite party 3 Lalla is represented by Sri M. C. Tewari a counsel of this court.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the Consolidation authorities rejecting the petitioners' prayer for amendment of the objection filed by them under section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, they have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I think that the consolidation authorities have not acted reasonably in rejecting the prayer for amendment moved by the petitioners. The petitioners have claimed right to the disputed land being heirs and brothers of the deceased. Now they seek the amendment on the ground that they have got right to own the disputed property on the basis of a Will executed in their favour since the later ground was not mentioned in the objection, they moved an application for amendment which has been rejected by the consolidation officer and the revision against it has also failed. Therefore, they have approached this Court. To my mind the consolidation authorities have patently erred in rejecting the prayer for amendment. No technical rule contemplated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable before the Consolidation authorities. Rather the consolidation authorities are required to decide the claim of the parties without indulging into technicalities for good. In this view of the matter, I find that the consolidation authorities have acted illegally in rejecting the prayer for amendment moved by the petitioners. The petitioners have added only one ground more for establishing their claim to the disputed land. Addition of the ground will not change the nature of the claim put forward by the petitioners. The petitioners may be heirs due to relationship with the deceased and also can claim heirship due to the circumstances that a Will has been executed in their favour. It appears to me that the judgments of the consolidation authorities suffer from patent error of law as they have acted unreasonably in rejecting the prayer for amendment. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revision court dated 27-4-88 and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 18-9- 1987, contained in Annexure '2' attached with the writ petition are hereby quashed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to grant relief of amendment of the objection and thereafter afford opportunity to the opposite party to file written statement if they so like and decide the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with the law. Since the parties have appeared, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage under the provisions of the Rules of Court.
(3.) PARTIES are directed to bear their own costs. A copy of this order may be given to the counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within 24 hours. Petition allowed.;