Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.—

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Jota Devi (since deceased) and now represented by her legal heirs against judgments and order dated 7.5.1983 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision No. 1667/1762 and has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 7.5.1983.

3. As per the factual matrix Late Sri Shambhu Sharan Singh was admittedly owner of Khata No. 8, 12, 73, 87, 272, 273 of Village Bela, Pashchim and khata No. 44 of Village Pure Uday Ram. Shambhu Sharan Singh died in the year 1972. Two objections were filed, one by Smt. Jota Devi being his widow and other by Sri Ramesh Singh claiming himself to be adopted son of Shambhu Sharan Singh. The Consolidation Officer decided both the objections and declared Smt. Jota Devi to be the heir of Shambhu Sharan Singh and directed that her name be recorded in the revenue records. Objection of Ramesh Singh was ultimately rejected. Against this order dated 31.5.1974 Ramesh Singh filed two appeals, Appeal No. 1535 and Appeal No. 1497 under Section 11(1) of Holdings Act. These appeals were also decided in favour of Smt. Jota Devi and against Ramesh Singh and both the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 25.10.1978. Feeling aggrieved, a revision was filed by Ramesh Singh. This revision was allowed by the then DDC vide order dated 10.5.1983 and orders passed by A.C.O and A.S.O.C were quashed and Ramesh Singh was held to be the heir of Shambhu Sharan Singh on account of the adoption. Feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.

4. It was argued from the side of the writ petitioner that the allegedly adoption took place on 17.5.1970. Its recital was written on 18.8.1972 and deed was registered on 11.10.1972 after the death of Shambhu Sharan Singh who died on 8.9.1972. This clearly goes to show that there is something wrong and it has not been explained as to why this adoption deed was not presented for registration in the life time of Shambhu Sharan Singh. It was also argued that Shambhu Sharan Singh had a widow and four daughters who all are married. The daughters were also having their sons. So it was very natural that Shambhu Sharan Singh if had any intention to adopt then he would have adopted one of the sons of his daughters, not Ramesh Singh who was a distant relative.

5. Per Contra it was argued from the side of Opposite Party No.3 that the writ is not maintainable as parties can get their grievance decided in a proceeding under Section 229(b) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It was also argued that since the document was registered hence, its authenticity was proved and DDC has on finding the document registered relied upon in it and passed orders accordingly.

6. I have gone through the respective submissions of the parties. No doubt, the remedy to get the rights declared under Section 229(b) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is available to the parties but the matter is of consolidation proceeding and U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not come into play while deciding the right and title of this proceeding. By filing objection under Section 9, the title is also to be decided. Hence this writ is maintainable.

7. In the case of Lipton India Ltd. Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2009 (27) LCD 161. A Division Bench of this Court has held that if the order passed by the authorities is arbitrary by abusing the power or any violation of principles of natural justice, it may always be subjected to judicial review.

8. In light of this it has to be examined as to what reasons DDC has given while reversing concurrent finding of A.C.O and A.S.O.C. It is to be noted that A.C.O and A.S.O.C both have found that will has not been proved and in suspicion.

9. DDC has without deciding and refuting the reasonings given by both the lower courts, has simply held that since the prescribed authority in a ceiling matter has held that Ramesh Singh is adopted son of Shambhu Sharan Singh and appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document