The Revisional Authority, by placing reliance on this document of auction sale, vide order dated 30.4.1974 reversed the Order of the Consolidation Officer and allowed the revision petition of the Respondent number.
The plot Nos.
Mahadev and Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereas Bhukhali was the resident of another village.
Therefore, through this Order, the Court upheld the claim of the respondents that Bhukhali had purchased the share of appellants father in an auction sale.
1 and 2 failed to produce the alleged Will executed by Bhukhali in their favour.
However, the said Will was never produced by the Respondent number.
The respondents failed to produce any other document to prove their title on the land in question.
Objections were however, filed by the Respondent number.
The said appeal of Rajpati was dismissed by a separate Order dated 11.12.1972.
The appellants, being aggrieved by the Order of the Revisional Authority dated 30.4.1974, filed a Writ Petition No.
Even at this stage, numberWill or other documents were produced by Respondent number.
However, the appeal of Rajpati was dismissed by the Revisional Authority on the ground that he had number preferred any objections before the Consolidation Officer claiming his title as a legal heir of Bhukhali over the land in question.
1 and 2 stating that the entering of Bhukhalis name in revenue records of the land in question had been registered as a companyowner even after the abolition of zamindari.
However, the Respondent number.
The same was dismissed vide Order dated 28.1.1972.
Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.
Mahadev and Shambhu Nath, the other share holders of the land companyceded to the rights of the appellants.
Rajpati, son of Bhukhali, who was made party to the proceedings, also filed a belated appeal after about one year of passing of the Order dated 13.7.1971 on the ground that he had numberknowledge about the said Order.
Respondent number.
Rajpati the son of Bhukhali, was also made a party to the proceedings but neither he filed any objection number he claimed his rights over the land in question before the Consolidation Officer.
Aggrieved by the Order of the Consolidation Officer, Respondent number.
1 and 2 at any stage before the authorities companyrt.
1 and 2 who are the son and daughter of Bhukhali and are his legal heirs who are the beneficiaries of the Will executed by Bhukhali in their favour.
The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.7.1971 accepted the objections of the appellants and deleted the name of Bhukhali from the revenue records by declaring that the entry of his name in the records was forged since Respondent number.
Objections were initially filed by the appellants whose father was 1/3rd share holder of the land which was recorded in the name of Bhukhali the father of the respondents.
1 and 2 filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer.
552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are registered in the names of the landowners Mahadev, Shambhu Nath and Bhukhali respectively.
The auction sale is in favour of Bhukhali which shows that the share of the appellants father was purchased by Bhukhali in the year 1934.
1 and 2 thereafter, filed a Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad against the Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 28.1.1972.
1 and 2 produced certified companyies of documents executed in 1934 pertaining to auction sale of the land in question before the Revisional Court.
The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for the deletion of the name of one Bhukhali father of the respondents since the appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in the revenue records pertaining to Khata number 63 of Village Badhaiya, Pargana Kewai.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the companyrectness of the judgment and final Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
