R. B. MEHROTRA, J.

The complex issue of consequence to ensue on publication of notification in the official Gazette under Section 4 (2) bringing certain villages under consolidation scheme is haunting the cause of justice in the present case. Factual matrix of the case is as short as it can be.

2. On 15-6-1979 a notification under Section 4 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the official Gazette notifying inter alia that the agricultural land situate in village, Bajhedi, Pargana, Jhinjhana, district Muzaffarnagar has been brought under the consolidation scheme.

3. Plot No. 698, area 12 Bigha, plot No. 699, area 1 Bigha, 13 Biswa, plot No. 700, area 12 Biswa, plot No. 701, area 12 Biswa, total 4 plots, area 3 Bigha 9 Biswa of Khata No. 147 in the aforesaid village was recorded as bhumidhari in the name of Beg Raj, who has been arrayed as respon dent No. 4 in the present writ petition. The present petitioners, namely Nagina and Shyam Lai sons of Data Ram purchased the aforesaid plots by means of a registered sale-deed on 16-7-1979, from respondent No. 4, without obtaining permission from Settle ment Officer Consolidation.

4. On 28-8-1989 the requisite publica tion in the unit where the village was situate, was made in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 4 (2) of the Act read with Rule 62 of the Rules framed under Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).

5. On the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Act praying therein that since the name of Beg Raj respondent con tinue to be recorded in the basic year, the name of the petitioners be mutated in place of aforesaid Beg Raj on the basis of the aforesaid sale- deed. Beg Raj filed an af fidavit before the Assistant Consolidation Officer admitting the execution of the sale-deed and also admitting that the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land. Aforesaid Beg Raj, respondent, however, contested the matter before the Consolida tion Officer and contended that since the sale-deed was executed in violation of sec tion 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act, it was void in view of Section 45-A of the Act and as such, the petitioners name cannot be mutated on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed.

6. All the three Consolidation courts, namely, Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the objection raised by Beg Raj and held that the sale-deed was a void document and no rights accrued to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed. Beg Raj, however, taking the advantage of his own conduct to nullify the claim of the petitioners sought permission on 10-9-1981 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to transfer the disputed land as per require ment of Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation granted permission. Consequent thereto Sri Beg Raj executed a sale-deed in favour of Indra Pal, Har Pal and Yash Pal who have been arrayed as respondents No. 5 to 7 in the writ petition. The present writ petition is being contested by the aforesaid respondents No. 5 to 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf supporting the judgment of the Consolidation Authorities.

7. I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai for the petitioner and Sri A. R. Dubey for the respondents. Both have filed their submis sions in writing which form part of the record.

8. After having executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, the transfer of Sri Beg Raj took a somersault on the basis of a provision of law, to undo the sale-deed ex ecuted by himself and having pocketed the consideration money, contested the proceedings, on technical ground and later on sold out the same land to respondents No. 5 to 7, thereby getting consideration money twice from two sets of transferee for the same land. The equity of the case is directly against aforesaid Sri Beg Raj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document