Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 688 (ALL)

Akhtari Begam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut

1984-09-05

K.P.SINGH

body1984
JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut on 22-4-1975 as well as the revisional Court on 28-7-1975. 2. It is not disputed before me that objections were filed by Rahman and Majid originally but it has been contended before, me that on the death of those objectors the objection would abate and neither the Pradhan nor the Consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to implead the heirs of the deceased. By the impugned orders it appears that the heirs of the deceased have been brought on record and it has been indicated that the provisions of abatement do not apply to the proceedings before the Consolidation authorities. 3. No provision has been cited before me to demonstrate that the provisions of abatement would apply to the proceedings before the Consolidation authorities. The powers of a Tribunal or Court are very wide with regard to granting relief to the persons entitled to the claim. On the facts and circumstance of the present case when the Consolidation Officer has substituted the heirs of the deceased. I think that he has done right thing. No manifest injustice has occurred to the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners shall be decided on merits. Therefore, I do not Consider it a fit case for interference with the impugned judgment. Shri Chaudhary has also contended before me that the heirs of the deceased have not come before the Court of their own accord nor have they filed any objection within the period prescribed under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act proceedings. 4. In my opinion the contention is without any force. If the recorded persons or the original tenure holders had filed objection then the heirs can continue that proceedings. By the impugned orders only heirs have been substituted in place of the deceased persons so the contention regarding limitation with regard to objection under Section 9 has no force. 5. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.