JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application no.26 of 2019

This amendment application has been made belatedly at a stage when this writ petition has come up for final hearing. This writ petition is one of the year 1984 and this amendment application has been made in the year 2019.

There is no good ground to grant this amendment.

This amendment application is hereby rejected.

It is directed that in cases listed for final hearing, it shall be the responsibility of the Section Officer concerned that there is no application pending for orders. If there is an application brought subsequently, in a final hearing matter, that matter will not be listed for final hearing, but for orders first. Any violation from this direction, will be viewed seriously.

Order on Civil Misc. Application (to postpone final hearing) no.13 of 2019

This is an application made with a prayer to postpone hearing of the writ petition till disposal of the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC in Original Suit no.355 of 1970. This application is prima facie not only a dilatory device in this petition, which relates to the year 1984, but is one made mala fide, a fact about which this Court is convinced.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show anything, on the basis of which this very old petition may be adjourned pending decision of a restoration application in a still older civil suit, somehow connected to the questions involved in the present petition; certainly not connected to the cause of action involved.

This application is rejected.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Sri Kanhaiya Lal, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Satish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dhruva Narayan Mishra for respondent no.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 30.05.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj (then Allahabad) in Revision no.44 of 1981, allowing that Revision, filed by respondents nos.4, 5 & 6. The interest of respondent no.6 is now represented by respondent no.5. The Revisional Court while doing so, set aside an appellate order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 01.08.1981 passed in Appeal no.88/165/62 and Appeal no.95/168/177 of 1981, that had, in turn, affirmed an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 05.03.1980, granting mutation in favour of petitioners. The petitioners' application, thus, stands rejected by the impugned order dated 30.05.1984 made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision.

3. The proceedings giving rise to the impugned order commenced before the Consolidation Officer on an application for mutation made by the original writ petitioners, Baladin son of Shiv Badal and Vijai Bahadur son of Sitaram, seeking mutation of their rights over agricultural land, comprising Khasra nos.379 and 405, situate in Village Pasiapur, Pargana & Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj. The aforesaid mutation application was made under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and hereinafter referred to as the Act.

4. The background in which the aforesaid proceedings for mutation commenced before the Consolidation Officer are these: Khasra plot no.379 admeasuring 5 Bigha, 19 Biswa and Khasra plot no.405 admeasuring 2 Bigha 5 Biswa, totaling an area of 8 Bigha 4 Biswa, said to be a grove situate in Village Pasiapur, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj (then Allahabad) were in the ownership and possession of respondent nos.7 to 16. On 31st May, 1965, Beni Prasad Tandon, whose interest is represented by respondent nos.7 to 16, agreed to sell the khasra plots above detailed (for short the property in dispute) to the petitioners for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.3000/-. The owners are said to have actually sold the property in dispute for a sum of Rs.3000/- by means of a registered sale deed, dated 02.10.1965, executed in favour of respondent nos.4 to 6. The petiti