High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chikhuri v. J.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 5480 of 1978  RD-AH 8685 (1 May 2006)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5480 of 1978
Chikhuri Versus Joint Director of Consolidation and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
List revised. No one appears for the contesting respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the basic year, only the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records against the land in dispute. On 15.11.1975, objection was filed before ACO Bharatganj, Allahabad by Sarju Pal respondent No.2 in the writ petition to the effect that in Khata No. 105 alongwith petitioner the name of objector (Sarju) should also be recorded as he had got half share therein. On 17.11.1975 another objection was filed by Ram Chandra respondent No.3 who is real brother of the petitioner. His Objection was that only he was in possession of the property in dispute i.e. agricultural land included in Khata No. 105 and after expunging the name of Sarju as occupant the name of objector Ram Chandra shall be recorded. Through another objection of the same date Ram Chandra stated that his name should also be included alongwith the name of petitioner as co-tenure holder as he was his real brother, in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land comprised in Khata No. 105. Copies of all the three objections are annexed as annexure 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.
It appears that some compromise was filed before ACO, Bharatganj, Allahabad. ACO on 5.12.1975, passed an order in accordance with the said compromise to the effect that name of the petitioner shall be expunged and names of respondent No.2 and 3 Sarju and Ram Chandra shall be recorded as Sirdars. Some other directions in respect of other plots of Khata No. 105 were also given. Against order dated 5.12.1975, petitioner filed Appeal No. 757/581 before S.O.C Meja district Allahabad. In the appeal, it was contended that the petitioner did not sign the compromise. Appellate court found the version of the petitioner to be correct and set-aside the order of ACO and remanded the matter to CO to decide the same on merit. Appeal was allowed on 5.8.1976. Against the said judgment and order of S.O.C, two revisions were filed being Revision No. 701/1346/140 Sarju Versus Chikuri and Revision No.420/1105/141 Ram Chandra Versus Sarju and others. D.D.C, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 3.3.1978 allowed both the revisions, set-aside the judgment and order passed by S.O.C and restored the order of ACO, which was based upon compromise. S.O.C had condoned the delay in filing appeal. D.D.C interfered in the said order also.
In my opinion D.D.C should not have interfered in the order of S.O.C condoning the delay in filing appeal.
As far as merit of the order of ACO dated 5.12.1975 is concerned it can not be sustained. ACO did not record any finding regarding his satisfaction about the factum of compromise. ACO only said that in accordance with the compromise matter was decided. Objections were filed in November 1975 and matter was finally decided by ACO on 5.12.1975 i.e. within 17 or 18 days. Unless the court is satisfied that the matter has been really compromised, order on the basis of said compromise cannot be passed.
Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the D.D.C is set-aside. Judgment and order passed by SOC is restored with the result that matter shall stand remitted to CO for decision on merit. However it is clarified that CO before deciding the matter shall ensure service of notice upon all the persons concerned.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.