I.M. Quddusi, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A N. Misra and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel, also appearing for the petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No. 2788 of 1984 and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) These are two Writ Petitions - one Writ Petition No. 2770/84 has been filed by Mst. Dhaneshara and the other one being Writ Petition No. 2788/84 has been filed by one Shree Nath alleged adopted son of Sita Ram, the late husband of Mst. Dhaneshara. Both have challenged the judgment and order dated 8-11-1983 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi Camp Gyanpur, in Revision No. 68-6/553, Panna Lal and others v. Shree Nath and others under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by means of which the learned Dy. Director of Consolidation set aside the judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the consolidation operation started in the village in question namely Jamnipur Pargana Bhadohi Tahsil Gyanpur District Varanasi in which the land in dispute i.e., Chak No. 36 area 10 Bigha 11 Biswa 7 Dhoor was allotted to one late Sita Ram s/o Ram Harakh and his name was recorded as Bhumidhar exclusively and Chakout plots of Khata No. 16 area 9 Bigha 3 Biswas and 1 Dhoor jointly in the basic year. He dies in the year 1967 The name of Mst. Dhaneshara was mutated vide order dated 12 2-1968. Thereafter on 27-2-1968 respondents No. 2 to 9 of Writ Petition No 2770/84 allegedly got executed the sale deed of the land in dispute which was allegedly executed by Mst. Dhaneshara in their favour, but due to certain irregularities/illegalities the sale deed was held invalid and a second sale deed was' allegedly got executed again and on that basic Vendees moved an application for mutation on 29-5-1971 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was registered as Case No. 1122/71, Murli and others v. Mst. Dhaneshara . Thereafter their names were mutated vide order dated 1-12-1971 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2788/84 Shree Nath himself claimed to be adopted son of Sita Ram and moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 1-12-1971 alleging that he was the only legal representative and heir of the deceased Sita Ram and Mst. Dhaneshara had no right to execute the sale deed in question and the mutation application was filed by the vendees on the basis of the sale deed, which was not executed by Mst. Dhaneshara. Her name was got executed by committing fraud and in any case the sale deed was invalid as no previous permission was sought from the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 14-7-1972 Thereafter an appeal was filed being Appeal No. 8062/72 and another Appeal No. 8063/72 was also filed against the order dated 1-12-1971 by which the Asstt. Consolidation Officer mutated the names of the vendees in place of Mst. Dhaneshara. The appeals were allowed and the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision on the ground that the order dated 1-12-1971 was an ex-parte order and was erroneous. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer framed six issues in the case on 18-6-1973 and an additional issue No. 7 was also framed on 7-3-1980 to the effect whether the disputed sale deed was bad for want of permission under Section 5(c)(11) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer decided the issue on 31-3-1980 as additional issue No. 7 as preliminary issue and held that no permission was sought before the transfer of the part of the holding hence the sale deed in question was invalid. Thereafter an appeal was bled before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varanasi, which was dismissed on '8-8-1982 holding that the sale deed in question was not executed of the entire Bhumidhari land and was for the part of the holding hence permission under Section 5-C (ii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was necessary before its execution; and the sale deed in question is invalid against which a revision was filed before the Dy. Director Consolidation. Varanasi as stated above, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer with a direction that he should decide all the issues involved in the case on merit after taking entire evidence and hearing of the parties.;