Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Gyan Shankar Ojha, for the petitioner and Sri Ganga Prasad Yadav, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for respondents-1 to 3 and Sri Nitya Prakash Tiwari, for respondent-7 and Sri Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Harish Kumar Yadav, Standing Counsel for Union of India, for respondent-8.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 1.4.2013, Settlement Officer Consolation dated 14.3.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.6.2014, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for direction to the consolidation authorities to effect the partition of the share of the petitioner in the land in dispute as well as declaring the sale-deed dated 14.11.2005, executed by Uttam Singh (respondent-4) in favour of Veer Singh (respondent-7), as void.

3. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khatas 51, 100, 132, 175 and 300 of village Tarauli and khata 192 of village Nawabpura, pargana Hasanpur, district Amroha. These khatas consisted plots 2 (area 0.413 hectare), 24 (area 0.312 hectare), 73 (area 0.304 hectare), 77 (area 0.372 hectare), 82 (area 0.304 hectare), 130 (area 0.146 hectare), 168 (area 1.181 hectare), 212 (area 0.125 hectare), 217 (area 0.032 hectare), 229 (area 0.024 hectare), 319 (area 1.206 hectare), 334 (area 0.263 hectare), 421 (area 1.157 hectare) and 425 (area 1.154 hectare) (total 14 plots area 6.993 hectare). In basic consolidation records, name of Veer Singh (respondent-7) was recorded over the land in dispute, alongwith other co-sharers. The petitioner did not dispute shares of other co-sharers, during consolidation operation.

4. Archna (the petitioner) filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the Act, on 8.12.2008, for deleting the name of Veer Singh from the land in dispute and recording her name alongwith Uttam Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh and Shashi Bhushan Singh (respondents-4 to 6), claiming herself to be a co-parcener of 1/4 share in the land in dispute. The petitioner stated that the land in dispute was ancestral property, coming from the time of her grand father, Hardeo Singh. After the death of Hardeo Singh, it was inherited by his sons, Khajan Singh and Uttam Singh and their sons, who formed Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law, of which Uttam Singh was ‘Karta’, who acted as such up to 1989. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, w.e.f. 20.12.2004. By virtue of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended), the petitioner has become co-parcener alongwith her father and brothers (respondents-4 to 6). Under the law, Joint Hindu Family Property is a trust for the benefits of the members, living and to be born. However, Khajan Singh and Uttam Singh executed sale-deeds dated 14.11.2005 in favour of Veer Singh and on its basis name of Veer Singh was mutated in the revenue record by order dated 19.12.2005. Uttam Singh had no right to execute the sale-deed dated 14.11.2005 and it is void. Name of Veer Singh was recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of a void sale-deed as such it was liable to be deleted. The case was contested by Veer Singh, who has stated that Khajan Singh and Uttam Singh were “bhumidhar with transferable right” of land in dispute, who executed sale-deeds dated 14.11.2005 in favour of Veer Singh and others and on its basis names of Veer Singh and others were mutated in the revenue record by order dated 19.12.2005. The land in dispute was agricultural land and the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) are applicable over it. The provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable to it. During life time of Uttam Singh, the petitioner has no right in the land in dispute and her objection was not maintainabl