JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10th May, 2000, allowing the revision filed by opposite party No. 2.
2. The dispute relates to one half share of Kunwar Sen who died leaving his widow Mst. Tarawati opposite party No. 2. On publication of records in village an objection Under Section 9A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Mst. Tarawati claiming one half share in the land in dispute. Said objection of Mst. Tarawati was opposed by petitioner on the ground that Mst. Tarawati remarried with one Siya Ram and whatever rights she inherited being widow of Kunwar Sen came to an end.
3. Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation rejected objection of opposite party No. 2, but Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed revision and reversed findings and order of authorities below. Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a clear-cut finding that remarriage has not taken place and Mst. Tarawati is still continuing as widow of Kunwar Sen.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner urged that finding of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the question of remarriage was not considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while reversing the orders. It was further urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and as such order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed.
6. I considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. While reversing the judgments of subordinate consolidation authorities, Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the judgments in totality and recorded his finding about illegalities committed by them. I do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the judgments of subordinate consolidation authorities at the time of passing the final orders by which he reversed judgments of subordinate consolidation authorities.
8. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly appreciated admissible oral and documentary evidence and rightly recorded a finding of fact that no remarriage has taken place. Kunwar Sen husband of opposite party No. 2 died on 23.6.1980. Litigation between petitioner-Vegraj and Tarawati opposite party No. 2 started in 1981 in Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts. Kutumb Register of 1988, Voter List of year 1988 and other documents are subsequent to beginning of litigation between the parties and were rightly not relied upon by Deputy Director of Consolidation. For this purpose he has also recorded reasons that those documents were wrongly and illegally considered by subordinate consolidation authorities to arrive at a conclusion of remarriage. I asked from learned counsel for petitioner the date of remarriage of Mst. Tarawati, but he could not show the date of remarriage in the pleadings of petitioner.
9. The judgments of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation, were also based on some irrelevant and inadmissible documentary evidence, filed by petitioner, pertaining to the period during pendency of the litigation. Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully competent to interfere with the findings arrived at by subordinate consolidation authorities relying upon such evidence.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show any perversity in any of the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
11. Writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
12. There shall be no order as to cost.