High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kalp Nath v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 13480 of 1989  RD-AH 11249 (5 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13480 of 1989
Kalp Nath .. ... ... Vs. ... ... Deputy Director of Consolidation and others
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J
In the basic year the respondents were recorded over the plot in dispute. The petitioner filed objections challenging the basic year entry. According to the petitioner a compromise was entered into between the parties before the Consolidation Officer on 3.10.1970. A belated appeal was filed by respondent Rajbali, Shyam Lal, Algoo sons of Achchaibar and Ram Asre son of Ram Ugrah. There was a delay of 17 years and as such an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that there was no sufficient reason for condoning the delay and as such dismissed the appeal. The respondents Raj Bali and others preferred a revision. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 29.6.1999.
The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the names of Rajbali, Sadhu Saran, Algoo, Shyam Lal, Ram Surat and Ram Asrey were entered over the disputed plot; several sets of persons filed objections but on the compromise there are thumb impression or signatures of only Sadhu Saran, Ram Surat and Daya Shankar son of Kalpanath. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that while there were about a dozen parties in the case but the compromise is said to have been signed by only three or four persons. After recording this finding the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that opportunity of hearing was required to be given in view of the principles of natural justice. No doubt the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded a finding in clear terms that the respondents had no knowledge but the substance of the finding is that the parties who had not signed had no knowledge about the compromise. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that although a vakalatnama was filed before the Consolidation Officer but the said said Vakalatnama was signed by only three parties. In consolidation proceeding title dispute are finally decided and it has that a liberal view has to be taken in the matter of condoning the delay. In Smt. Ram Thakura Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others [1975 RD 270] it has been held that valuable rights of the parties are decided in consolidation proceeding and where the court condones the delay in filing of an appeal in exercise of its discretion the writ court ought not to interfere as the discretion has been exercised for advancement of justice. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the finding that the compromise bears only the signatures of some of the parties, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and condoning the delay in filing the appeal does not call for any interference. The writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.