- (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Singh, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramanand Pandey, Advocate representing the private contesting respondents.
(2.) The facts of the case are that one Dukharan was the recorded tenure holder of the disputed plots numbered as Plot Nos. 36 and 37 (New Nos. 91 and 92). Dukharan died issueless. One Atarbasi, i.e., the predecessor in interest of the contesting respondents, filed an application for mutation of her name in place of the deceased tenure holder on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the original tenure holder in her favour. The application for mutation by Atarbasi was allowed by the concerned Naib Tehsildar vide his orders dated 24.9.1982 and 14.2.1983. The petitioner contends that he filed an appeal against the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar. However, during the pendency of the alleged appeal filed by the petitioner, a notification dated 3.9.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act 1953') was issued and published and, therefore, the proceedings abated.
(3.) It has been stated by the petitioners that by order dated 12.7.1991 passed in appeal allegedly filed by the petitioner, the orders dated 24.9.1982 and 14.2.1983 were set-aside and the name of the petitioner was directed to be mutated in place of Dukharan. It has been stated in the writ petition that a reference was filed against the order passed by the appellate court but the said reference was dismissed on the ground that the reference was not maintainable. There is some dispute between the parties regarding the existence of the orders dated 12.7.1991 and 11.5.1992 and regarding the filing of the appeal by the petitioner and it is stated by the counsel for the contesting respondents that no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 24.9.1982 and 14.2.1983 and no orders dated 12.7.1991 and 11.5.1992 were passed by the appellate court. There is also some dispute regarding the legality of the orders passed by the appellate court and the revisional court as counsel for the respondents argue that the said orders were without jurisdiction. The Court is not entering into the said disputes because, the disputes are not relevant for a decision of the present writ petition. However, the name of Atarbasi continued in the basic year records because of the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar in her favour and Atarbasi was recorded in the subsequent records prepared during the consolidation proceedings, such as, CH Form-11, CH Form-23 and CH Form-45. During the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 for correction of the said records and on the application filed by the petitioner, Revision No. 03 under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar. Revision No. 03 was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 16.6.2015 which has been challenged in the present writ petition.;