IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 817 of 2005 (M/S) Surendra Mohan Nath Mehrotrason of late Banarsi Das Mehrotra, Resident of Mohalla Khatriyan, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and five others. …… Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, (Ziladhikari, Udham Singh Nagar) and seven others. ….. Respondents Sri Gopal Krishan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate holding brief for Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondent nos, 4, 5 and 7. Date:- December 3, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. Admit the writ petition. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.06.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition), order dated 26.9.1997 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and the order dated 18.11.1995 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners had filed objection under Section 9(A) (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for mutation of their names on the basis of the sale deed which was executed by respondent no. 6 of the land. According to the petitioner Devendra Singh- respondent no. 6 had executed a sale deed as power of attorney holder of Ram Kishan on 20.07.1983 regarding plot no. 224 area 1.29 acre and plot no. 225 area 0.65 acre situated in Village Sarwakhera, Tehsil Kashipur in favour of late Banarasi Das who had died during the pendency of proceedings. The petitioner nos. 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of late Banarasi Das. The boundaries of the abovementioned land has also been mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioners have stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the plot nos. 175, 176 and 196 were showed by the respondent no. 6, which are recorded in the name of Payara Singh and Balwindar Singh son of Pyara Singh, for sale before executing the sale deed. Pyara Singh is the father of the respondent no. 6. The objection under Section 9 (A) (2) has been filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the fact that the mutation be allowed as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed on the abovementioned plot nos. 175, 176 and 196 which are recorded in khatauni no. 1389-1394 F (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) in the name of Pyara Singh and Balwinder Singh (son of Pyara Singh) instead of plot nos. 224, 225 which are mentioned in the sale deed. The Consolidation Officer after haring the petitioners on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the land which was transferred by way of sale deed belonged to Ram Kishan as per khatauni no. 1389-94 F (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). The respondent no. 6 had executed sale deed as power of attorney holder of Ram Kishan. The learned Consolidation Officer has given a categorical finding that the land which is in the name of father and brother of respondent no. 6, they are independent tenure holders and the plots which were transferred through sale deed belonged to Ram Kishan and allowed the mutation on the basis of sale deed on the plots which were recorded in the name of Sri Ram Kishan as per Khatauni (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, which too was dismissed by the appellate court, and the Settlement Officer Consolidation affirmed the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer. Further aggrieved by the order of the appellate court the petitioners preferred revision, the revision was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar. Hence, this writ petition. The only controversy to be decided in the present writ petition is whether the Consolidation Officer has rightly rejected the objection of the petitioners or the mutation on the basis of sale deed ought to have been ordered as per boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record and also the impugned judgments. The short controversy is whether the petitioners are entitled to get their names mutated on the basis of the sale deed as per boundaries or the mutation can be ordered only on the plot numbers which has been mentioned in the sale deed. Before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners have taken lame stand that the respondent no. 6 is an ostensible owner of plot nos. 174, 175 and 176 mentioned in the objection and prayed for mutation which are not recorded in the name of respondent no. 6 and it has further been contended that the respondent no. 6 has also showed the plots mentioned in the objection for sale. But the sale deed was executed of plot numbers mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioner have failed to prove this fact that the respondent no. 6 is the ostensible owner of the land which was mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioner have also filed the Khataunit (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) of the land which was sold by the respondent no.6. By persual of the Khatauni, it reveals that the plots which were sold by respondent no.6 as power of attorney holder belonged to Sri Ram Kishan. This fact is not disputed and Sri Ram Kishan has no concern with the land of Pyara Singh and Balwindar Singh. Since the respondent no. 6 has executed the sale deed in capacity of a power of attorney holder on behest of Ram Kishan of the land (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) which were recorded in the name of Ram Kishan. The land of Pyara Singh and Balwindar Singh could not be mutated in the name of the petitioners on wrong mentioning of boundaries in the sale deed. It is also the duty of the purchaser to verify the revenue record before the purchase of the land that who is the owner and bhumidhar of the land in question. Mere signature on the sale deed as an attesting witness does not mean Pyara Sing has consented to sell his land. It is well settled that the contents of the document is not binding on the attesting witness. An attesting witness is the only witness to the fact that in his present the sale deed was executed by the executant, i.e. respondent no. 6. The learned Consolidation Officer has rightly rejected the objections. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The appellate as well the revisional court has rightly affirmed the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order dated 8.8.2005 passed by this Court is vacated. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 3.12.2008 (B.S.Verma, J.) RMY