- (1.)Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 6.
(2.)The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 216 and 419. Gauri had two sons, namely, Bodhan and Sita Ram. Basanti was the widow of Bodhan. Sita Ram had two sons, namely, Ram Raksha and Ram Adhar who have been impleaded as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition. Shakuntala Devi, i.e., respondent no. 4 is the wife of Ram Adhar and Basmati, i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition is the wife of Ram Raksha. In the basic year records, Basanti Devi and Sita Ram were recorded as 'Sirdar' of the disputed plots. During the consolidation proceedings, Case No. 7053 was registered under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') and the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 3.12.1977 directed that the petitioner be recorded as 'Sirdar' of some plots included in Khata No. 216 and respondent no. 4 be recorded as 'Sirdar' of some plots included in Khata No. 419 and the rest of the plots included in Khata Nos. 216 and 419 be divided between respondent nos. 5 and 6 each having 1/2 share in the same. It has been stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid case was registered on the objections filed by respondent no. 4 and the order was passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The order dated 3.12.1977 was set-aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 3.5.2011 passed in Appeal No. 2197/130 filed by respondent no. 4 under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 and through his aforesaid order, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed that the entries in the basic year records relating to Khata Nos. 216 and 419 be retained with Basanti Devi having 1/2 share in the aforesaid khatas and the joint share of respondent nos. 5 and 6 was also held to be 1/2. The order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 23.9.2011 passed in Revision No. 897 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.5.2011. The orders dated 3.5.2011 and 23.9.2011 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.)I have heard the counsel for the parties.