High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lalman And Another v. D.D.C. And Others - WRIT - B No. 8168 of 2001  RD-AH 14492 (28 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8168 of 2001
Lalman & another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
The facts giving rise to the present dispute as set out in the writ petition are as under :
Two sale deeds of the land in dispute were executed by one Parasnath and Amarnath in favour of the petitioners and contesting respondent no. 3 sometimes in 1959. At the time of the execution of the sale deed Amarnath was minor and was represented by his elder brother Parasnath as his guardian. During consolidation proceedings, the dispute between the petitioner and the contesting respondent was settled on the basis of a compromise and vide order dated 11.2.1973 the name of the contesting respondent was directed to be recorded as co-sharer. Two time barred appeals are stated to have been filed by the petitioners on 5.2.1980 challenging the order dated 11.2.1973 on the ground that they never entered into any compromise and the Assistant Consolidation Officer has wrongly passed the order. Before Settlement Officer Consolidation the dispute between the parties is stated to be settled by way of a compromise, on the basis of which, the appeals filed by the petitioners were allowed and the land in dispute was directed to be exclusively recorded in the name of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, contesting respondent no.3 filed a time barred revision on the ground that no appeal was filed by the petitioners in 1980 but it was filed subsequently and was ante-dated. It was also pleaded that they never entered into the compromise and the order was obtained from the Settlement Officer Consolidation by playing fraud and misleading the court. It was also stated that no notice or summon was ever served. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 2.2.2001 allowed the revision, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision was highly barred by time and the Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly allowed the same without condoning the delay. It has further been contended that the contesting respondent had filed another revision no. 1139 challenging the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was not pressed by him and as such, the second revision was not maintainable. My attention in this connection has been drawn to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.6.1997 filed as annexure-7 to the writ petition.
In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the categorical findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the appeals were not filed by the petitioners in 1980 but was filed much later and made ante-dated and neither any compromise was filed before the court below nor the revision no. 1139 was filed by the respondent, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
On an analysis of the records, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that though the appeals are stated to have been filed on 19.5.1980 but the entire order sheet from 19.5.1980 22.1.1997 is in one hand writing and it cannot be believed that for a period of 17 years only one person was writing the order sheet of the Settlement Officer Consolidation , nor can it believe that for 17 years only dates were being fixed without undertaking any other proceedings. He has also recorded a finding that in the order sheet dates were fixed for hearing on 18.1.1990, 3.3.1990, 5.4.1990, 18.6.1990, 2.8.1990, 15.9.1990, 2.11.1990 and 18.12.1990 and again 29.1.1990, 10.3.1990, 18.4.1990, 4.6.1990, 27.7.1990, 2.8.1990, 15.10.1990 and 3.12.1990 were repeated which is not possible. He also found that in the ''Misilband' register 1985-86 there is no entry of the appeals and ''Goswara' also shows that the appeals were never filed. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that the appeals were not filed in 1980 but much subsequently and have been ante-dated. He has also recorded a categorical finding that the alleged revision no. 1139 which is said to have been not pressed by the contesting respondent on 19.6.1997 was not filed on behalf of the contesting respondent no.2 and as such, the same has no effect.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the findings arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that a fraud was committed by the petitioners in filing the appeals and the alleged revision no. 1139. The order obtained from Settlement Officer Consolidation by practicing fraud cannot be allowed to be sustained and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly set aside the same and allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondent.
In the end learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute had traveled to this court earlier in writ petition no. 1561 of 1974 which was decided in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 26.10.1978 and their title in the property in dispute was upheld. My attention in this connection has been to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners annexing therewith the order dated 26.10.1978 of this court.
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is not only misconceived but the averments made in the supplementary affidavit are misleading as well. From a perusal of the judgment of this court dated 26.10.1978 it is clear that the said dispute was in between the petitioners and the vendor of the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed was wrongly executed by Parasnath acting as a guardian of his minor brother Amarnath. In that dispute this court on the basis of the admission made by the vendor in mutation proceedings held the sale deed to be valid. The said dispute had nothing to do with the present dispute between the petitioners and the contesting respondent no.2 with regard to the title over the land in dispute. In the earlier litigation, there was no adjudication with regard to title inter-se between the petitioners and respondent no.2. and thus the said decision has no effect whatsoever in the present proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no scope of interference in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.