Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5662 of 2018 Petitioner :- Badam Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Shukla,Harish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satendra Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the caveator-respondents 4 to 8.
The instant writ petition arises out of an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is stated to have been filed by respondent no. 3, Mool Chand.
It appears that the objection was decided on the basis of a compromise by the A.C.O., which order was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties.
The Consolidation Officer thereafter decided the objection by his order dated 01.1.1994. It is nobodies case that this order was subjected to any further challenge by any party.
The petitioner thereafter allegedly purchased some land of one Bhojraj by means of a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1994 through his guardian, Angan.
By the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 01.01.1994, the share of Bhojraj was held to be 1/4th.
The order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 01.10.1994 was implemented in the revenue records in proceedings under Rule 109-A on 24.06.1996.
The petitioner who is the purchaser of the share of Bhojraj filed a revision on 09.06.2011 challenging the aforesaid two orders, passed by the Consolidation Officer. This has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 28.07.2018.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds that this revision has been dismissed rightly because the petitioner seeks thereby to reopen proceedings, which had attained finality prior to the petitioner purchasing the share one of the parties to the litigation. He is therefore a stranger to the litigation and does not have any right to reopen proceedings which have attained finality in so far as his vendor is concerned.
Besides, on a pointed query by the Court, counsel for the petitioner admits that by means of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner no litigation rights had been transferred by the vendor.
The writ petition is therefore completely devoid of merit and the impugned order that has been passed for no cogent reasons, calls for no interference.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Mayank