High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mathura Prasad v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Basti & Others - WRIT - B No. 40160 of 2006  RD-AH 34 (1 January 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40160 of 2006
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti & others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri B. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Dwivedi appearing for the contesting respondents
The facts are that the petitioner and father of the respondents no. 2 to 5 are real brothers. Chak of the petitioner as well as the respondents no. 2 to 5 was not separated by the Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceedings, against which an appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise application dated 13.3.2002 was filed to the effect that both of them had half share in the Khata in dispute and the same may be separated. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 6.4.2002 disposed of the appeal in terms of compromise between the parties. Thereafter, an application under Rule 109 A of the Rules framed under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner for giving effect to the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the record as well as on the spot. The Assistant Consolidation Officer after getting the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation proposed bifurcation of the Khata in two parts. The said report was accepted by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.5.2004. Aggrieved, father of the contesting respondents no. 2 to 5 filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2004. In the meantime, father of the contesting respondent died. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by the respondents no. 2 to 5 by filing revision. Revisional Court finding that bifurcation of Chak has been done by the Consolidation Officer without considering the grievance of the contesting respondents has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to bifurcate the Chak after hearing the parties. A further finding has been recorded that by the proposed bifurcation undue advantage was given to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bifurcation was done in accordance with the terms of the compromise between the parties and as such the same was not open to challenge.
In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In view of the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that bifurcation of Chak was made without considering the objection filed by the contesting respondents and by the proposed bifurcation, the petitioner was put in very advantageous position, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The dispute has rightly been remanded back to be decided afresh after considering the grievance of both the parties.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.