High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Udhav v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Mau & Others - WRIT - B No. 21650 of 2007  RD-AH 8739 (8 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21650 of 2007
Udhav ......... Petitioner
Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Mau and others ..... ... ... .... ... .... Respondents
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J
Heard Shri Shyam Krishna counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
Plot no. 1452 was recorded in the name of Daya Shankar father of respondent no.3 and Pateshwar. Objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner claiming right over 56 kharis of the plot on the basis of possession. It appears that before the Consolidation Officer, a compromise is said to have been entered into and the case was decided on the basis of that compromise on 21.7.2001. The order was challenged in appeal by respondent nos. 3 and 4 who denied the compromise. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal and set aside the compromise and maintained the basic year entry. Against that order the petitioner filed revision which has been dismissed. The orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are under challenge.
Two submission have been made by the counsel for the petitioner - first that there was a compromise which had been entered through a counsel Sri Kashi Nath who had been engaged on behalf of Daya Shanker father of respondent no.3 and the finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in effect that the compromise was a forged one is erroneous. This submission does not have any force. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has given cogent reasons for recording this finding of fact that the compromise could not have been relied upon. It has been found that no notice was given to Daya Shankar. There was a cutting in the date mentioned in the notice meant for service on Daya Shankar. He also found that after the report of chakbandi karta even the order sheet has not been filled up. Good reasons therefore have been given for coming to the conclusion that the compromise was not reliable and prepared by manipulation without knowledge of Daya Shankar. Thus this contention of the petitioner's counsel fails.
The second contention is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has after setting aside the compromise directed the basic year entry to be maintained which he could not have done as the objections are required to be decided on merits. I find merit in this contention of the petitioner's counsel. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has found that no evidence was there on record to prove the possession of the petitioner and that no evidence was even led in the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order passed on the compromise there was no occasion for leading evidence and appropriate course in such case for the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was to have sent the case back to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merit. Having considered the matter, I find that the view taken by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on this point is erroneous. The basic year entry could have been maintained only after adjudicating the matter on merits.
In the circumstances, the order of the settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.6.2006 and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.3.2007 are set aside and the case is sent back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision on merits.
The writ petition is allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.