JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Impugned order in the writ petition is the order dated 4.2.2006, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr holding revision maintainable.
2. Dispute relates to Khata Nos. 175, 176 and 177. Sondai and Champa Devi were recorded as Bhumidhars in the Basic year. Petitioner and others filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming rights on the basis of adverse possession. Another objection was filed by Sunehari and Sondai for rejecting claim of petitioners. Third objection was also filed by one Munni Devi claiming her Bhumidhari rights in the same land. During pendency of the proceeding before Consolidation Officer, Sunehhri and Sondai executed a sale deed on 21.1.1998 as regards Plot Nos. 220, 0.982 Hectare in Khata No. 175 and 0.22 Hectare in Khata No. 176 in favour of one Samai Singh. An application was filed by transferee for mutation of his name. During pendency of that Application, Samai Singh also executed a sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They also filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of transfer.
3. Consolidation Officer after consolidating all the cases rejected petitioners' objection and allowed objection of Sunehri and Sondai by an order dated 25.9.1999 and declared them as bhumidhars.
4. Petitioners preferred an Appeal which was allowed by an order dated 20.9.2003 against which a revision No. 1453 was filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. During pendency of the case, petitioners raised a preliminary objection that revision filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as transferees is not maintainable, as Sunehri and Sondai did not prefer any revision. By the impugned order, revision preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was held maintainable.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that revision preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not maintainable as they are purchasers pending proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and they are bound by the decision of the Appellate authority against which Sunehri and Sondai did not prefer any Revision. He further urged that at most Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Revisionists may move an application for mutation under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before Assistant Consolidation Officer, Revision preferred by them was not maintainable. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation declaring revision maintainable is vitiated in law and revision is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
7. In reply to the same, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 urged that revision was rightly filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as they are aggrieved persons and their rights are going to be affected by the Appellate order. It was further urged that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are transferees from recorded tenure holders and they have every right to protect their interest. Revision was rightly held to be maintainable.
8. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 111 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules makes it clear that there is no bar that a transferee, pending proceeding under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, cannot challenge order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to protect his interest and to satisfy the Revisional authority about the incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any order. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were also parties to proceedings as their mutation application was also pending.
10. I also carefully considered provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
11. In case Appeal of petitioners was allowed, the effect may be that names of transferors of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be expunged and in consequence thereof in the revenue record published under Section 10 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, names of Sunehri and Sondai or transferors of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may not find place, therefore, they may not file any objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before Assistant Consolidation Officer as urged by learned Counsel for petitioner. Objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could be filed if changes and transfers affecting any rightly or interest recorded in the revenue record published under Section 10 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is going to affect right of a party for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under Sections 9 to 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were in progress.
12. In the present case, transfer was already made during pendency of the proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and transferees were party to those proceedings, as they had already filed an application in the said proceedings. Therefore, in case any order was passed under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against Sunehri and Sondai or transferors of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, same may be incorporated in the revised record. The effect of which would be that names of Sunehri and Sondai or transferors of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would be expunged and Sunehri and Sondai or Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may not prefer any objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The only remedy available to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is to challenge the order passed against them in Appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by filing a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation in order to show incorrectness, illegality and impropriety of the order passed by the Appellate authority. Consolidation Officer had already passed an order on 25.5.1999 declaring Sunhari Devi and Somdevi as transferors of contesting-Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They were also parties to proceeding and they rightly preferred revision to protect their right, title or interest with the prayer to get appellate order set aside.
13. The judgment reported in 2003 (2) RD 44, Aparbal Yadav v. Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not agree with the arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner that only remedy available to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is to file an objection before Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rightly preferred a revision which will be heard and decided in accordance with law on merit.
15. In the result, Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.