High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Saran Misra & others v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 7791 of 1973  RD-AH 2412 (31 January 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7791 of 1973
Ram Saran & others vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Pratapgarh and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Km. Merun Dey holding brief of Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The dispute relates to khata no. 260 which was recorded in the name of respondent no.4 Sat Narain in the basic year. An objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') was filed by petitioner nos. 2 to 4 claiming that they are entitled to 7/24th share each in the property in dispute and their name should be recorded in the revenue records. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer a compromise was filed alleged to have been entered into by power of attorney on behalf of respondent no.4 and Ram Saran petitioner no.1 who is the father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and in accordance thereof petitioner no.1 was declared to be co-tenure holder to the extent of ½ share in the disputed khata. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.4 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 20.2.1970. The petitioners went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide impugned order dated 18.7.1973 allowed the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that no objection was ever filed by petitioner no.1.
It has been alleged by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner nos. 2 to 4 filed objection on behalf of their father petitioner no.1. It has further been urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a new case between the parties.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The objection filed by petitioner nos. 2 to 4 has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same goes to show that the three petitioners were claiming share in the khata in dispute to the extent of 7/24th share. No claim was ever made with regard to the right of petitioner no.1 in khata in dispute nor the same could have been made by them. In case the petitioner no.1 intended to claim any right in the khata in dispute he ought to have filed the objection himself. He has neither filed any objection nor he was a party in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and thus the order of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation declaring him to be a co-tenure holder to the extent of ½ share of the khata in dispute on the basis of a compromise was totally illegal and without jurisdiction. Unless the petitioner no.1 had filed an objection and was a party to the proceedings neither he could have entered into any compromise nor the Consolidation Officer had any jurisdiction to declare him a co-tenant of the khata in dispute. The orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were without jurisdiction and have been rightly set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, no illegality has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in passing the impugned order.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.