Court No. - 22 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 1010 of 2014
Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation District Pratapgarh And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.S.Parihar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 05.11.2014 and 21.7.2014.
The petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer proceeded to reject the same. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by means of order dated 16.9.1995 set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and directed the Consolidation Officer to hear both the parties and give them opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter decide the same on merit. After remand, the Consolidation Officer allowed the parties to adduce evidence and both the parties were heard and thereafter an order was passed on merit on 17.1.2011 by means of which, the claim of the petitioner on the basis of unregistered Will Deed was not found to be substantiated and the same was rejected. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who heard the same on 22.1.2011 and notices were issued fixing 24.2.2011. On 28.4.2011, the petitioner's counsel moved an application for adjournment, on which, the date was fixed as 12.5.2011. On the date fixed, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and the appellate court found that there was nothing on merit and after going through the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, dismissed the appeal ex-parte on merit. Against the said order, a restoration application was moved on the same day, which was rejected and thereafter a revision was preferred, which has also been rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing and without there being any adjudication on merit, the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation cannot be sustained.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the claim has been raised on the basis of unregistered Will Deed. The claim on the basis of unregistered Will Deed has not been found to be substantiated by the Consolidation Officer, who after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the District Judge after considering the claim of the widow and minor son, allowed the sale deed to be executed in favour of opposite parties and the money has passed on to the widow and the minor child. Submission is that no illegality has been committed and one of the witnesses has also not supported the case of the petitioner. An FIR was lodged against
1
the petitioner and charge sheet has also been submitted. Learned counsel submits that the unregistered Will Deed is a forged Will and the same has been prepared for the purpose of litigation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I find that the petitioner has deliberately avoided to argue the matter and wanted to delay the proceedings by lingering on the same, but anyhow the conduct of the petitioner itself goes to indicate that as soon as the case was decided ex-parte on merit, the restoration application was moved on the same day. This itself goes to indicate that the petitioner was monitoring the case one way or the other and he avoided to argue the case.
It is not that the appeal was decided ex-parte, but it was decided on merit and the merit was appreciated by the revisional court. The revisional court also persuaded itself in the same direction and recorded a finding that the case cannot be restored and neither the restoration application can be heard and on that basis, proceeded to reject the revision.
The facts and the evidence on record goes to indicate that unregistered Will has also not been found to be substantiated and the widow and the minor child of the deceased, who died in an accident, have proceeded to sell the land and have received the money. The private opposite parties happen to be the vendee from the widow and the child. Everything has been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge and thereafter permission has been granted. The petitioner happens to be the nephew and the claim on the basis of unregistered Will does not substantiate in any manner.
The petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2015 Sachin
2