J.N.Dubey - (1.) THE sole point for determination in this writ petition is whether after notification of the village under section 4-A (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act orders passed in the earlier consolidation proceedings can be given effect to in the revenue records under section 52 (2) without filing a regular objection under section 9-A (2).
(2.) IT appears that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Smt. Anto who executed three separate lease deeds on 7-6-1944 for five years duration-one in favour of Bhuley respondent no. 5, the other in favour of Rajjan grandfather of respondent no. 6 and the third in favour of Rumal father of respondents nos. 7 to 9. One Harbans claiming himself to be a reversioner filed Suit No. 139 of 1946 in the civil court against Smt. Anto which was decreed on 7-12-1946. Smt. Anto filed first appeal against the said decree which was allowed by the District Judge on 22-3-1949. Harbans filed second appeal in this court which was dismissed. He filed a complaint under section 145 CrPC in which the land in dispute was attached on 20-9-1949. Subsequently a final order was passed under section 146 CrPC on 27-3-1951. Meanwhile Smt. Anto executed a gift deed in favour of one Jai Chand and Vidya Dhar who applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Harbansh filed objection in the mutation proceedings which was allowed by the Nyaya Panchayat on 6-11-1951 and he was recorded in the revenue records in place of Smt. Anto. Smt. Anto and others filed Suit No. 273 of 1952 against Harbansh in the court of Munsif which was dismissed. They filed first appeal which was allowed by the Civil Judge on 6-2-1956 and the plaint was returned for presentation to proper court. Thereafter they filed a suit in the revenue court but before it could be decided the village was notified under section 4 of the Act and as such the entire proceedings were abated under section 5 (2) of the Act on 11-8-1956.
(3.) BHULEY and others filed objections before the consolidation authorities claiming Sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the basis of the lease deeds executed by Smt. Anto in their favour on 7-6-1944. Smt. Anto died on 15-8-1957 and thereafter their objeccion was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 24-8-1957 and they were directed to be recorded as sirdars of the land in dispute in place of Harbansh. Harbansh filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed on 16-1-1958. He filed revision which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 28-2-1958. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, taking suo moto action remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that he should first determine the heirs of Smt. Anto and then decide the objection filed by BHULEY and others. When the matter went back to the Consolidation Officer a number of objections were filed before him-one by the petitioners claiming themselves to be sister's sons of husband of Smt. Anto, the other by one Vedpal claiming himself to be her son, the third by Harbansh claiming himself to be a reversioner, the fourth by BHULEY and others lessees claiming Sirdari rights in the land on the basis of the lease deeds executed by Smt. Anto in their favour on 7-6-1944 and the fifth by Jaichand and Vedpal claiming rights in the land on the basis of gift deed executed by her. On the other hand, the Gaon Sabha claimed that the land vested in it after the death of Smt. Anto. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 30-7-1958 sent the matter to the Civil Judge for referring it to the Arbitrator. The Civil Judge after framing necessary issues referred the matter to the Arbitrator on 13-8-1958. The Arbitrator gave his award on 6-2-1964 which was accepted by the Civil Judge on 30-4-1966. The petitioner filed appeal no. 165 of 1966 to the District Judge which was allowed on 3-1-1967 on the finding that the reference to the civil court by the Consolidation Officer was invalid and the Consolidation Officer was directed to decide the dispute himself. The Consolidation Officer while allowing the objection of the petitioners dismissed the objections filed by other persons on 17-2-1971 and directed that the petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars of the land in dispute after expunging the name of Harbansh from the revenue records. Bhuley and others filed appeal no. 3 of 1971 which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on 13-12-1971. Thereafter, only respondent nos. 7 to 9 filed revision no. 1 of 1972 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on 4-4-1973 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The parties filed compromise before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the basis of which the appeal was dismissed on 25-7-1973. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 moved an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for setting aside the order dated 25-7-1973 on the ground that they were not served with any notice after the order of remand which was dismissed on 2-5-1974. They filed revision no. 1 of 1974 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 6-1-1977 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding afresh.;