S.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 27.12.2008 and 8.1.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively.
(2.) THIS is a unique case of chequered history of fraud being perpetuated by near ones, who have shown a recorded tenure holder to be dead and thereby usurping his property by getting a forged Will deed prepared and getting their property recorded in their name and thereafter executing the sale deeds in favour of opposite parties. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that Ram Dular Singh (petitioner) S/o Ram Dev Singh and Kashi Nath Singh, Sri Krishna Singh and Nandji Singh sons of Roop Singh were the recorded co-tenure holders of Khata No.146 measuring 42-0-4 situated in Village Maholia, Pargana Dewa, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki. They were recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. Apart from it, Shiv Pujan Singh, Shiv Dhari Singh and Dev Dhari Singh sons of Gayaj Singh were the co-tenure holders of Khata No.116 measuring 10-0-0 situated in the aforesaid village. Kailash Singh S/o Shobh Nath Singh alleging Ram Dular Singh S/o of Ram Dev Singh and Kashi Nath Singh, Sri Krishna Singh and Nandji Singh sons of Roop Singh to be dead moved two applications for mutation on the basis of a registered Will deed in his favour; one is against the registered Will deed by Kashi Nath Singh, Sri Krishna Singh and Nandji Singh sons of Roop Singh and the other is alleged to be the Will deed executed by the petitioner. Both the cases proceeded separately and Naib Tehsildar, North, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki passed an order for mutating the name of Kailash Singh S/o of Shobh Nath Singh, r/o Village Dharkanda, Pargana Danwar, District Rohtas, Bihar on 14.2.1986. Kailash Singh moved an application along with his brother Harihar Singh claiming execution of the registered Will deed by the petitioner and on that basis he sought mutation. The said application was allowed on 18.2.1986 by Naib Tehsildar, North, Tehsil Dewa, District Barabanki. After the said mutation orders were passed on the basis of the alleged registered Will deeds executed in favour of Kailash Singh and Harihar Singh S/o Shobh Nath Singh, an application under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Act') was moved by the petitioner alleging therein that he was very much alive and the alleged registered Will deed was never executed by him, but in fact it is a forged and fabricated document prepared at the behest of Kailash Singh and the Will deed was executed by some impostor and in fact he has never executed any Will deed at any point of time and Kailash Singh was a forgerer. It is also stated that he was deputed to look after the property of the petitioner and manage the agriculture, but taking advantage of the aforesaid fact he got executed a forged Will deed and got his name recorded and thereafter he fraudulently executed sale deeds in favour of certain persons. Mudit Verma, opposite party no.3 moved an application for impleadment. He also filed an objection by raising a preliminary objection that the matter was pending in the consolidation court. The court of Naib Tehsildar after coming to the conclusion that the proclamation has not been issued in accordance with law and the death of the petitioner was not proved and the petitioner had appeared before the court and submitted his written as well as oral evidence recalled the order dated 18.2.1986 and restored the same to its original number at a cost of Rs.500/- vide order dated 20.9.2002. Similarly, Kedar Singh and Raj Kishroe Singh S/o Kashi Nath Singh through their Attorney, Ram Govind Singh moved an application under Section 201 of the Revenue Act challenging the mutation order dated 14.2.1986 on identical allegations that it was a forged Will deed prepared at the instance of Kailash Singh and in fact Kashi Nath Singh had expired prior to 1984 and during his life time he has not executed any Will deed. Kashi Nath Singh was resident of Bihar and Kailash Singh happens to be his servant and looking after the affairs of the agriculture. He could not come to know about the aforesaid forgery and, therefore, as and when it came to his knowledge he moved an application for recall. Kedar Singh and others moved an application for substituting their names, which was rejected on 5.12.1986. The Attorney holder, Ram Govind Singh again moved an application for substitution, which was rejected on 3.8.1987 for non-prosecution. On 1.4.1998 again he moved an application for substitution, which too was rejected on 29.8.1998. Thereafter, an application was moved for recalling the order dated 14.2.1986. The court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no mention in the proclamation about the death of the tenure holder and the service was affected only by pasting. Kallu Ram, Pradhan of the Village and the Revenue inspector's report dated 11.11.1986 did not establish the death of the petitioner and the recall application was allowed at a coat of Rs.1,000/-. Another unregistered Will deed was executed by Shiv Pujan Singh, Shiv Dhari Singh and Dev Dhar Singh S/o Gayaj Singh in favour of Kailash Singh S/o Shobh Nath Singh. After recall of the order, the parties pursued their case before the consolidation authorities regarding which objections were pending before the Consolidation Officer. Specific point was raised before the Naib Tehsildar that the matter is pending before the consolidation authorities and notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'CH Act') and so the order cannot be recalled, the Naib Tehsildar overruled the objection relying upon the decision of the Board of Revenue in the case of Bhaggan vs. Ganesh, 1988 RD vide order dated 20.9.2002. The said order was not challenged anywhere and it became final.
(3.) IN the consolidation proceedings objection was filed under Section 9 of the CH Act by the petitioner through his Attorney, Ram Govind Singh and Mohd. Azizullah S/o Hasmatullah, Shiv Pujan Singh, Shiv Dhari Singh, Dev Dhari Singh Sons of Gayaj Singh also filed objections. Gram Sabha, Maholia also filed objection claiming certain property to be the Gram Sabha property. The Consolidation Officer after consolidating all the objections framed five issues and decided the case on 24.4.2006. Against the order dated 24.4.2006 of the Consolidation Officer two appeals numbering 2916 and 2919 were filed by the opposite parties no.3 and 12 along with the application for interim relief. The appellate court rejected the interim relief application of the opposite parties vide order dated 5.5.2006, against which three revisions were filed numbering 1057, 1060 and 1037. All the three revisions were consolidated together and were disposed of by a common order dated 10.8.2006 and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside. The case was remanded to the appellate court with the direction that in view of the observations made above, the vendees may be impleaded as party and thereafter the interim relief application may be considered on merit. During the pendency of the appeals before the appellate court an application for transfer was moved and the Additional Director (Consolidation) vide order dated 25.4.2007 transferred the case from the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki to the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad. Anil Kumar etc. were impleaded as party and the application for amendment of the memo of appeal moved by the petitioner was also accepted and Harihar Singh was impleaded as opposite party no.13. The case was not argued by the petitioner on 3.1.2008 and so a direction was given for filing written arguments and the case was fixed for orders on 8.1.2008. On 8.1.2008 both the appeals were allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24.4.2006 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, two revisions were filed by the petitioner as well as by opposite party no.3 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.12.2008 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and disposed of the revision filed by opposite party no.3. Hence this petition.;