Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3685 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyama Devi And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation (D.D.C) Mainpuri And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation dated 26.12.2017. Briefly stated the facts are that one Bihari Lal was living in Village Bamtapur, Tehsil Karhal, District Mainpuri. He had two daughters, namely, Jaidevi and Ramkali and one nephew Raghuvar. Both the daughters were married. After the death of Bihari Lal names of her daughters were mutated. They executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner no. 2 and the husband of petitioner no. 1 on 23.10.1992. The third respondent Basant Lal initiated proceedings in the year 1995 for deletion of names of Jaidevi and Ramkali from Gata No. 188/1-84 situated in Khata No. 100 and Gata Nos. 175/0- 60, 178/0-86 and 274/0-09 situated in Khata No. 377. He also sought a relief for declaration.
It is stated that two time-barred objections were filed by the third respondent before the Consolidation Officer on 16.6.2008 and 27.7.2008. In the said objections he claimed his right on the basis of will which was alleged to be executed on 15.9.1977 by one Bihari Lal.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the said unregistered will was not in the knowledge of Jaidevi and Ramkali daughters of Bihari Lal. Thereafter, an amendment application was filed by the third respondent to amend the suit. The said application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 3.1.2015. Aggrieved by the said order the third respondent preferred a revision before the first respondent, which was allowed on 26.12.2017.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
From the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation it is evident that in the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the parties can amend their pleadings hence he was satisfied that the amendment can be made in the pleadings as in the consolidation proceedings the claim of the title is also challenged. The D.D.C. accordingly allowed the third respondent and remitted the matter back to the C.O. to decide the matter on merits.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
I do not find any error in the order of the D.D.C. who has set aside the order of the C.O. rejecting the amendment application.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the C.O. to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within one year after furnishing opportunity to the parties. He shall not give any unnecessary adjournment without imposing cost of not less than Rs. 200/- on every date.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Digamber