JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Facts which are not under dispute that one Sujan Singh, a sirdar of land bearing Khata No. 142 situated at village- Rajpura, Tehsil- Jalaun (at present Madhogarh), District- Jalaun, had deposited 20 times of land revenue in terms of Section 134 (prior to its omission by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 w.e.f. 28.01.1977) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "Act, 1950") on 14.11.1973 and on very next day, i.e. on 15.11.1973, said Sujan Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner herein and possession of land referred above was also handed over to him.

2. It is also not under dispute that Sujan Singh died even before Bhoomidhari Sanad was issued. It is not on record, whether legal heirs of deceased Sujan Singh have taken any interest in proceedings of issuance of Bhoomidhari Sanad or not.

3. It appears that co-sharer (Ram Singh) of land in question had filed objections to the application for Bhoomidhari Sanad, however, since Sujan Singh died on 19.03.1974, proceedings in all probabilities did not proceed further. Later on, concerned village was brought within consolidation proceedings and petitioner filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "Act, 1953") and claimed his rights on basis of sale deed and prayed for declaration of bhoomidhari rights for share of Sujan Singh (since deceased).

4. Contesting respondents have filed objections and denied claim of petitioner and claimed entire land to be their bhoomidhari. They have also objected that Sujan Singh has no right to transfer the land in dispute since he was not a bhoomidhar, since no Bhoomidhari Sanad was issued to him and that earlier proceedings for mutation were abated against Sujan Singh.

5. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that no Bhoomidhari Sanad was issued to vendor (Sujan Singh). An appeal thereof was also rejected by an order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 09.01.1991. A revision petition has also received the same fate on 29.03.2010.

6. Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner has initially placed heavy reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in Ram Bilas and another v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 2006 (101) RD 51 and referred paragraph 12 thereof is quoted below -:

"12. It is well settled that when a party dies right of substitution is not on the basis of succession but a person who is competent to represent the estate of deceased party and has no interest adverse to the estate of deceased is substituted as heir and legal representative to carry on litigation. Since, during the pendency of the revision Pursottam died and was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives and subsequently the proceedings were abated and all Sirdars were confirmed Bhumidhari rights, the question arises whether a legal representative brought on record to represent the estate of deceased can claim independent rights, contrary to the pleadings or interest of the deceased. As a matter of fact, had Pursottam not died he would have acquired the status of Bhumidhar under Ordinance No. 1 of 1977 and since he had already executed the sale deed after depositing 20 times land revenue, it would have related back to the date when he made the application and deposited the amount. Ram Bilas and Bateshwar substituted in place of deceased Pursottam would derive whatever the rights from Pursottam and since he had already executed a sale deed prior to his death his heirs would be bound by it