Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURAJ PAL & OTHERS versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suraj Pal & Others v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 8002 of 1973 [2006] RD-AH 2557 (1 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS WRIT NO. 8002 OF 1973

Suraj Pal & Another                                  .............Petitioners

Versus

The Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Allahabad  and others                      ................Respondents

Hon. Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Satya Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The dispute relates to plot no. 6111 of khata no. 453 situate in Tahsil Manjhanpur, District Allahabad. In the basic year the said khata was recorded in the name of the petitioners. An objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by opposite parties no. 4 to 7 claiming co-tenancy right to the extent of one-third share. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, a compromise was filed on the basis of which the objection filed by the respondents was dismissed and the basic year entry in the name of the petitioners was maintained. Subsequently, respondents no. 4 to 6 again filed an application before the Consolidation Officer that the alleged compromise was fraudulent. The Consolidation Officer rejected the same against which the contesting respondents filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to decide whether the compromise is forged and fraudulent and if so, to decide the case on merits.

The Consolidation Officer by order dated 19.9.1972 held the compromise to be fraudulent and after considering the case on merits allowed the objection filed by the contesting respondents. Against the aforesaid order the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 26.2.1973. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.8.1973.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not a case of practising fraud on the Court hence the Consolidation authorities could not have cancelled the compromise and it could have been done only by Civil Court. It has further been urged that once the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the compromise they could not have decided the dispute on merits.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

On the basis of the expert evidence adduced by the parties the Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding that the alleged compromise was forged and fraudulent and a fraud was practiced on the Court which led the Court to pass the order on the basis of said compromise. The same findings have been confirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and also by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The findings recorded by three courts regarding the compromise being forged and fabricated are findings of facts based on appraisal of evidence brought on record. It is well-settled that findings of fact are not open to interference by this Court while exercising powers conferred by Article 2d26 of the Constitution of India.

No other point was pressed before me. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition being concluded of findings must fail and is hereby dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt. 1.2.2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.