Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh for the private respondents.

2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim with regard to the property situated at Khata no.26 in village Adharkhera, Parghana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, from Jagan, which was purchased jointly by his mother, Smt Kulwanta Devi, and Lalta Singh, has assailed the orders dated 02/03/1960 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, order dated 11/03/2015 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and order dated 16/02/2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. According to the petitioners, the disputed land was purchased vide a registered sale deed on 19/03/1959 by Sri Kamta Singh, the father of the petitioner, who paid the consideration for the purchase of the said land, which was registered in the name of Smt. Kulwanta Devi, his wife, and Lalta Singh, his brother. Lalta Singh moved an application for mutation based on the aforesaid Sale dated 19/03/1959 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, and the land was mutated only in the name of Lalta Singh.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said land continued to be in joint possession of the mother of the petitioner and a younger brother-in-law (Devar), and she was not aware that Lalta Singh had got the land mutated in his own name only, even though, as per the sale deed, the land was jointly purchased.

5. It was submitted that in the meantime, the consolidation operation had been held in the said village twice, the 1^st proceedings were conducted between 1960 and 1966, and secondly from 1996 to 2002. The mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Kulwanta Devi has died in the meantime. The petitioner stated that he is the son and legal heir, along with the party No. 2 of Smt. Kulwanta Devi, and that they came to know about the mutation of the disputed land in the name of Lalta Singh, only on 23/09/2013 from inspection of the record, and after taking legal opinion, challenged the order of mutation dated 02/03/1960 by filing an appeal before the Settlement of the Consolidation, Lucknow.

6. The appeal was decided and rejected on 11/03/2015, thereby declining to condone the delay in filing the said appeal. Before the appellate authority, it was the case of the petitioner that the entire sale consideration for the sale of the disputed property was given by their father, Sri Kamta Singh, while the sale deed was executed in favour of Smt. Kulwanta Devi and Lalta Singh. The father of the petitioner, Kamta Singh, was working in the police department and was posted in Moradabad. He superannuated from service in 1971 from Sitapur, and the appellant was living with him all along and therefore was not aware of the mutation proceedings having been carried out by Lalta Singh. After his retirement, his father started living in the village Teghna Mau and died in 1990, and during this period, the appellant could hardly visit Lucknow or find out about the disputed land. It was further stated that the petitioner and his brother got involved in the agricultural work in the disputed land jointly with the successor in interest of Lalta Singh, and there was therefore never any doubt about their ownership, nor did they suspect any wrongdoing that Lalta Singh would have got the land mutated in his name only