Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 23.4.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) Brief facts as enumerated in the writ petition are that during the course of consolidation proceedings the property in dispute, i.e., Khata No. 9 of village Dunl Chandpur Pargana and Tehsil Deoband, district Saharanpur was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Kabja Singh, respondent No. 2, objection under Section 9 was filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be the daughter-in-law of Kabja Singh. She claimed her right on the basis of a family settlement. According to the petitioner, the memorandum of family settlement was recorded on 28.12.1980. The petitioner filed document dated 28.12.1980, examined witnesses and did not examine Kabja Singh. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer. Consolidation held that the parties were in possession on the basis of the family settlement. The contesting respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the document dated 28.12.1980 was not family settlement rather it was a memorandum of family settlement and family settlement had already taken place between the parties and only the memorandum was reduced in writing on 28.12.1980, therefore, this document did not require any registration. The second ground of attack is that the finding was recorded by the appellate court that the family settlement was proved, then this finding of fact should not have been interfered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in holding that the family settlement to be invalid as the petitioner's father Kabja Singh was not given any share in the land in dispute and share was given to the petitioner who was not the legal heir during the life time of her husband.;