IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 154 of 2001 Om Prakash ……..Petitioner. Versus The Deputy Director of Consolidation (Camp Roorkee), Haridwar and others. ……..….Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1 and 2. Mr. Mahavir S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3/1 to 3/5 and 5/3. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.1995 and the order dated 23.2.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Kanhaiyla Lal was the Zamindar having large area of land in Village Ashafnagar (now at Haridwar after formation of District Haridwar) Grant in Tehsil Saharanpur, District Saharanpur. In the year, 1936, Kewal Ram, S/o Kanhaiya Lal died and for providing maintenance to his widow namely Smt. Parvati, Kanhaiya Lal executed a deed for maintenance on 25.2.1937, which was duly registered. By the said deed of maintenance, Smt. Parvati was given 51- 9-8 Khudkasht land for her maintenance with right to cultivate or get it cultivated, but was not given the right to transfer the land or to gift the land or to give land on Theka. According to the said deed, after her death or on 2 remarried, the said land had to be reverted back to the heirs of the Kanhaiya Lal. The name of Smt. Parwati was mutated in the Khewat and she was recorded as Khudkasht holder. On the abolition of Zamindari w.e.f. 1.7.1952 Smt. Parvati became Asami of the land given to her under the deed of maintenance under Section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act with non-transferable right. In the year, 1960 Kanhaiya Lal died and on his death the bhumidhari rights were inherited by his sons Mani Ram and Balbir Singh and Smt. Parvati with 1/3rd share in the land measuring about 17 Bighas. Smt. Parvati executed a sale deed on 15.3.1972 in respect of land measuring about 32-6-0 in favour of Mahendra and Mahesh Kumar, sons of Balbir Singh. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the execution of the said sale deed, he filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Roorkee against Smt. Parvati, Mahendra and Mahesh Kumar for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.3.1972. The said suit was decreed on 30.5.1974. Against the said order, Mahendra and Mahesh Kumar filed an appeal being Appeal No. 311 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge, Roorkee, District Saharanpur. The said appeal was dismissed on 1.12.1980. Being aggrieved against the said decree, Mahendra and Mahesh Kumar filed a second appeal in High Court of Allahabad, which according to the petitioner, is still pending. After the judgment and decree passed in Appeal, the sale deed was cancelled vide order dated 31.3.1981 passed by the Sub Registrar. In the basic year, the name of Mahendra and Mahesh Kumar was found entered, therefore, the petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee for expunction their names and for recording his name with half share in the land in dispute. Respondent No. 3 Mahendra filed his reply to the said objection. Thereafter, the Consoldiation officer by his order datd 12.6.1995 upheld the petitioner’s 3 objection and held that Smt. Parvati had no right to execute the sale deed and her status was that of an asami and the petitioner has half share in the land in dispute. Being aggrieved by the said order, Mahendra filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 31.7.1995 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision. The said revision was also dismissed on 23.2.1996 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Against the said order present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees on the pedegree reproduced as under: Kanhaiya Lal Mani Ram Kewal Ram Balbir Singh Parvati Devi Rami Devi Om Prakash Savitri Devi Mahendra Singh Mahesh Kumar 4. Learned counsel for the parties further agree that as per provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and according to this Pedegree, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be directed to declare the right and title of the parties. The orders dated 31.7.1995 and 23.2.1996 including the order passed by the Consolidation Officer are set aside. 4 5. In view of the aforesaid, matter is sent back to the Consolidation Officer to determine the right and title of the parties as per the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as per pedegree as quoted above afresh. 6. Writ petition are allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour