- (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava (III) for the petitioners and Sri Upendra Kumar Pandey for contesting respondent no. 3.
(2.) It appears from the records available before this Court that the dispute between the petitioners and the contesting respondent relates to the nature of the disputed plot and consequently the title of the parties over the disputed plot. The claim of the petitioners is that the plot was recorded as Usar and Pasture land and some part of the land was allotted to the father of the petitioners who became a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the plot allotted to him and subsequently after the death of his father, the plot devolved on the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that at the instance of respondent no. 3, the revenue records were manipulated and the respondent no. 3 got her name fraudulently recorded in some revenue records as bhumidhar of the disputed plot. It has been stated in the writ petition that on the complaint of the petitioners, an enquiry was instituted and an enquiry report was submitted before the Collector stating that the revenue records were manipulated at the instance of respondent no. 3. However, in the meantime, the consolidation proceedings had also intervened and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 had filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). In the case registered at the instance of respondent no. 3 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953, the respondent no. 3 filed an application that the records relating to the enquiry being held regarding the disputed plot be summoned by the Consolidation Officer and the dispute regarding the nature and the title of the disputed plot be decided. The said application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the recall application filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide orders dated 28.1.2015 and 19.8.2015 and the consequential revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by order dated 6.1.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) Evidently, proceedings registered before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 at the instance of respondent no. 3 are still pending. The proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 registered at the instance of respondent no. 3 are title proceedings wherein the title of respondent no. 3 shall be decided by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of evidence produced before him. The petitioners claim to be the allottees of certain parts of the disputed plot. The petitioners have the right to intervene in the matter as their claim is that the name of his father was recorded during the first consolidation operations in the village and, therefore, the petitioners have the right to oppose the objections filed by respondent no. 3 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. The validity and the correctness of the different revenue entries shall be decided by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 as the said proceedings are title proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, no illegality has been committed by the Consolidation Officer in summoning the records relating to the enquiry proceedings instituted at the instance of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;