Court No. - 44
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1036 of 2019 Petitioner :- Krodh Devi Respondent :- Disrtict Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tawvab Ahmed Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Tawvab Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State- respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor Camp Amroha and the order dated 5.4.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
It reflects from the record that one Vidyawati w/o Jal Singh d/o Khachedu filed an application under Section 6-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act for mutating her name in the revenue record. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14.2.2008 allowed the application and her name was mutated. Against the said order, respondent no.3 who claims to be the second wife of Jal Singh, filed an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 31.5.2008 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Since the order passed in a proceeding under Section 6-A was uncontested matter therefore, Settlement Officer Consolidation set side of the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Consolidation Officer and directed to file their claims before the Consolidation Officer.
The petitioner claiming her rights on the basis of sale-deed said to be executed by Smt.Vidyawati w/o Jal Singh d/o Khachedu filed an objection on 2.4.2008 before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) Smt.Vidya respondent no.3 claiming herself to be the second wife of Jal Singh also filed an objection. During the pendency of the objection, Smt. Vidyawati w/o Jal Singh d/o Khachedu died on 23.7.2015 and on the application filed by the respondent no.3 for her substitution, the Consolidation Officer allowed the same vide order dated 5.4.2018. The petitioner challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 5.4.2018 by means of the revision being Revision No. 104/445 under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.
C.H. Act which was dismissed on 23.2.2019. The order dated 5.4.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are impugned in this writ petition.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 3 is the second wife of Jal Singh and as such she cannot be substituted in the proceedings.
I have considered the arguments so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The matter with regard to the successor has to be decided on merits. Mere substitution of her name does not confer any right to her claim to be the successor of Jal Singh. The specific finding in this regard has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Akbar