SHIVA NARAYAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, U.P. MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PHULLOO , the father of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was sirdar of the land in dispute. On 10 -3 -1953 hp executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Swarup, father of the Petitioner. Phulloo deposited ten times of the annual rent in the Government Treasury. A Bhumidhari Sanad was issued to him Under Section 137 of the UP ZA and LR Act and he became a Bhumidhar with effect from, 10 -3 -1953. It is said that therefore he was entitled to transfer the land. Shortly after the execution of the sale deed Ram Swarup died and the Petitioners applied for mutation in their favour. Meanwhile proceedings for consolidation of holdings commenced in the village and objections Under Section 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 contending that fraud had been practised upon Phulloo. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection and directed that the names of the Petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed an appeal filed by the Respondents. A second appeal was, however, allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation. Thereafter a revision application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. The Petitioners pray for certiorari against the orders of the Assistant Director and the Joint Director.

(2.) THE question which arises in this case is whether on the date when the sale deed was executed namely, 10 -3 -1953, Phulloo can be said to have acquired Bhumidhari rights. That question depends upon whether he deposited ten times of the land revenue contemplated by Section 134 on 10 -3 -1953. Although Phulloo paid over the money into the Government Treasury on 10 -3 -1953, it was entered into the account on the next day only. The Assistant Director has taken the view that the date of deposit must be taken as 11 -3 -1953, when the money was credited in the Treasury. In, my opinion, the approach adopted by the Assistant Director is patently erroneous. Section 134(1) provides: