The main legal point established in the judgment is that the objection of the respondents was maintainable under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and they were entitled to their share as per the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. –

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, for the petitioner and Dr. C.P. Upadhyay along with Sri Ram Raj Prajapati, for respondents-4 to 6.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 1.6.2013 and 14.2.2014, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.7.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.5.2016, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of land of basic consolidation year khata 27 [consisting plots 262 (area 1.38 acre), 271 (area 1.87 acre), 290/1 (area 0.57 acre), 385 (area 0.79 acre), 412 (area 0.76 acre) (total 5 plots area 4.04 acre)] of village Madhopur, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi, which was recorded in the names of Jawahir son of Jhurru, Kallu, Jittu, Kalicharan and Malicharan sons of Somaru, Babunandan son of Dukhran, Jhagru and Mangru sons of Dassu.

4. Smt. Prema Devi, Smt. Jharema Devi and Smt. Sarema Devi (respondents-4 to 6) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed a time barred objection dated 23.5.1994 under section 9 of the Act, along with delay condonation application, for recording their names as the heirs of Phoolchand (their brother) and declaring their 1/5 share jointly in disputed khata. It has been stated by the respondents that the disputed land was ancestral property from the time of Dukhran, who was inherited by his five sons Somaru, Jhurru, Dassu, Ramman alias Ram Nandan and Babunandan. Ramman alias Ram Nandan was inherited by Phoolchand, who died issueless. At the time of death of Phoolchand, they were his minors sisters and unmarried. Being his preferential heirs according to section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, they inherited his 1/5 share, in disputed khata. On 19.5.1994, when they took extract of khatauni from Lekhpal, then they noticed that their names were not mutated after death of Phoolchand.

5. It may be mentioned that Kiran Society also filed another objection for recording its name over the land purchased by it from the respondents. Assistant Consolidation Officer, along with his report dated 3.6.1994 forwarded the objections to Consolidation Officer for disposal. Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.6.1997 condoned the delay in filing the objection. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 17.4.1998, proceeded ex-parte against other recorded tenure holders of the khata and by ex-parte order dated 27.4.1998 allowed the objections.

6. Jawahir son of Jhurru filed an application for recall of the orders dated 4.6.1997, 17.4.1998 and 27.4.1998, along with delay condonation application on 15.2.1999. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 19.4.2003 allowed the recall application, recalled the orders dated 17.4.1998 and 27.4.1998 and restored the objection of the respondents its original number. During trial, Consolidation Officer summoned the record of Case Nos. 501 to 503 decided on 21.3.1993, on the application of recorded tenure holders.

7. At this stage, the respondents came to know about the order dated 21.3.1993 passed in Case Nos. 501 to 503. Then they filed an application dated 21.4.2003, along with delay condonation application, for recalling the order dated 21.3.1993. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 29.8.2005 dismissed their recall application on the ground that as the respondents were not parties in the proceeding nor they filed their objection under section 9 of the Act as such recall application was not maintainable.

8. In the objection of the respondents, the recorded tenure holders filed their counter-objection. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed on 29.8.2005 and the parties adduced their evidence. While case was listed for evidence, Jawahir filed an application on 26.4.2011, raising preliminary objection, relating to the maintainability of the objection of the respondents on the ground that Consolidation Officer had already passed an order