S.U.KHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.4 Ram Pratap Singh contesting respondent who has appeared through caveat at the admission stage. In the year 1988 respondent no.4 Ram Pratap filed objections before Assistant Consolidation Officer Soraon, District Allahabad to the effect that agricultural land comprised in pot no. 34 total area 4 bigha 10 biswa in which late Sri Ram Nath (father of the petitioners) had half share was sold by him to objector Ram Pratap through registered sale deed dated 30.07.1981 hence his name shall be entered in the revenue records as Bhoomidhar to the extent of half share in plot no.34. Late Sri Ram Nath filed reply to the said objections copy of which is Annexure 2 stating that he had not executed any sale deed and it appeared that some other person impersonated him and executed the sale deed. In the said objections dated 29.03.1988 it was no where stated that Ram Pratap had taken some loan from him (Ram Nath). However, subsequently it was asserted that on 26.06.1981 Ram Pratap had taken loan of Rs.8,500/- from Ram Nath photo copy of pronote was filed before the Consolidation authorities. They did not believe the same on the ground that original was not filed. Moreover no suit for recovery of the said amount was filed by Ram Nath against Ram Pratap. Consolidation authorities by no stretch of imagination can entertain claim with respect to unpaid loan and direct recovery of the same.
(2.) EXPERT evidence on the disputed signatures of late Sri Ram Nath on the sale deed was also adduced. Late Sri Ram Nath adopted every sort of trick to delay the disposal of the case. Ultimately, C.O. Sahanso, Allahabad decided the objections (case no.1030 Ram Pratap Vs. Ram Nath) through order dated 03.11.2000 holding the sale deed to be valid and directing entry of the name of Ram Pratap over 50% share of late Sri Ram Nath in the agricultural land in dispute. Copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Against the said order appeal no.1918 was filed by late Sri Ram Nath. Appeal was dismissed by S.O.C. through order dated 23.10.2003 copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. During the pendency of appeal late Sri Ram Nath had filed an application for permission to adduce expert evidence on the disputed signatures. The said application had been rejected on 11.09.2003. Against orders of S.O.C. dated 11.09.2003 and 29.10.2003 two revisions were filed by late Sri Ram Nath numbered as revision no.710 renumbered several times thereafter and revision no.690 renumbered thereafter several times. D.D.C./A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad dismissed both the revisions through order dated 13.07.2009 hence this writ petition. The revisional Court has mentioned that even though High Court had directed to decide the revision within specified time however late Sri Ram Nath filed several adjournment applications as well as transfer applications hence matter could not be decided within time. I find two errors in the judgments of the Courts below:
(3.) THE first is that respondent no. 4 Ram Pratap did not give any explanation as to why for 7 years he did not take any steps for entry of his name in the revenue records. The other is that the courts below particularly revisional Court/D.D.C. held that late Sri Ram Nath had not filed any suit for cancellation of sale deed before Civil Court(competent court) even till the date when revision was heard and decided. It was further held that in case sale deed had not been executed by Ram Nath he should have filed suit for its cancellation.;