JAMAL AARA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these two writ petitions raise similar controversy and arise from proceedings under Section 6-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and are therefore being taken up and decided together.

(2.) In WP no:18930 of 2014 the question of succession was with regard to the land record in the name of one Hashmatullah who died on 01.06.2011 leaving behind a widow and seven married daughters. The widow also died on 12.02.2012. Thereafter an order was passed on 26.02.2012 in favour of the respondent no:3 on the ground that she was the only unmarried daughter while her six sisters were all married. An appeal was filed by the heirs of one of the married daughters on the ground that respondent no:3 was not unmarried. The mutation order was set aside on the ground that it was not a case of undisputed succession and also that the appeal was not maintainable as it was directed against an administrative order. The matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to issue notices to the parties and decide the dispute under section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The restoration filed by the respondent no:3, Shama Parveen was dismissed which order was affirmed in revision. The writ petition has been filed by the six sisters of respondent no:3 for a mandamus to the Consolidation Officer to decide the case remanded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as the respondent no:3 was trying to sell off the disputed property.

(3.) In wp no: 22882/2014 an order passed on 22.12.2013 under section 6A in favour of the petitioner, mutating him in place of Chottan (deceased) was set aside in revision by the DDC on the finding that the said Chottan died in 1981 and ever since the parties had been litigating in various revenue Courts and before any final judgement could be passed, the village came under consolidation operations and therefore it was not a case of undisputed succession.