RAM SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, CAMP AT BALLIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner No. 2 states that he adopted Petitioner No. 1, a minor, as a son, as he has no issue and he executed a registered deed of adoption on 12 -8 -1947. On 4 -11 -1961, the Petitioner No. 2 applied to the Assistant Consolidation Officer praying that Petitioner No. 1 may be entered in the village records along with Petitioner No. 2 as a cobhumidhar. No objection was filed against this application. On 2 -12 -1961, the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed the following order Under Section 9(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter Mentioned as the Act):

(2.) THE Petitioners filed a second appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Under Section 11(2), before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who dismissed it on 4 -3 -1963. He noticed two points raised by the Petitioners. The first was that the contesting opposite parties had no locus standi to file an appeal as they were not aggrieved persons. The second was that the appeal was time barred and there was no justification for condonation of delay. Unfortunately, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also thought that recording the name of a would be heir as a co - tenure holder with the bhumidhar was prima facie illegal and that such a question could not legally arise. The Deputy Director held that the Assistant Settlement Officer had rightly set aside such an order when it was brought to his notice. The Petitioners then invoked the interference of the Director of Consolidation who also rejected the revision application Under Section 48 of the Act on 8 -8 -1963.

(3.) ANOTHER patent error in the order of the consolidation authorities was that the contesting opposite parties were not aggrieved persons at all by the order made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. They claim no right or interest in the Bhumidhari rights of the Petitioners and were clearly actuated by some oblique or improper motive. Their appeal should have been rejected on the ground that they were not aggrieved persons.