High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhoora v. Jt. Director Of Consolidation & Others - WRIT - B No. 1090 of 2000  RD-AH 17130 (4 October 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1090 of 2000
Bhoora. Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others.
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.
Mangi was the tenure holder of the disputed land. According to Bhoora, the petitioner, Mangi had two sons Bhoora and Ram Sagar, respondent no.2. On the death of Mangi the petitioner made an application to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for recording the names of the petitioner as well as that of Ram Sagar in place of Mangi. Another application was filed by Jagdish and Janardan respondents 3 and 4 who are sons of Ram Sagar that their names be recorded as a will had been executed by deceased Mangi in their favour in respect of a portion of the land. It appears that Ram Sagar had also filed an application for mutating his name in place of Mangi over the land in dispute on the basis that he is the only son of Mangi. A fourth application was filed by Ram Khelawan son of Bhoora for mutating his name in place of Mangi on the basis of a will also said to have been executed by Mangi in his favour. The Assistant Consolidation Officer did not pass any order on the applications filed by Ram Sagar, Jagdish, Janardan and Ram Khelawan but on the petitioner's application he passed an order-dated 15.10.1997 on the basis of an alleged compromise that the names of the petitioner and of the respondent no.2 Ram Sagar be recorded in place of Mangi in C.H. Form No. 23.. Against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer two appeals were filed. One by Ram Sagar and the other by Janardan. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved Ram Sagar, Jagdish and Janardan filed two separate revisions. The Deputy Director Consolidation has allowed the revisions and has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and has directed the case to be decided afresh. The petitioner Bhoora has challenged the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation in this writ petition.
I have heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.A. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
The finding recorded by the Deputy Director Consolidation is that the compromise, which is alleged to have been entered into before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not signed by Ram Sagar. It is not in dispute that the compromise was signed only by Bhoora and by some members of the consolidation committee but there are no signatures of Ram Sagar thereupon. Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules gives power to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to decide the objections filed on the basis of conciliation in the presence of at least two members of the consolidation committee. The said Rule also provide that the compromise shall be read over to the parties concerned and their signatures or thumb impression obtained. The finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Director Consolidation that Ram Sagar's signatures are not contained in the compromise is not challenged. The compromise is therefore not in accordance with Rule 25-A and the view taken by the Deputy Director Consolidation on the point, therefore, appears to be correct. It also appears from the facts that there is a strong contest between the parties about succession to the property of deceased Mangi and no less than four sets objections were pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. In the circumstances the view taken by the Deputy Director Consolidation that there was no compromise does not suffer from any error, which may call for interference in writ jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Akhandu and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and others 1997 R.D. Vol. 88 page 4 and emphasis is made on paragraph 23 of that judgment. It has been held in that case that the Deputy Director Consolidation had travelled beyond his jurisdiction while assessing the facts afresh when the judgment and order dated 12.11.1976 of the Settlement Officer consolidation in appeal contained clear cut findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and there was absolutely no reason to up-set the same. The case is clearly distinguishable. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Consolidation Officer to decide a case is a limited one. He can decide cases only on the basis of conciliation. The compromise in dispute did not bear the signature of Ram Sagar who has denied the compromise. The compliance of Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules has not been made. The decision cited has therefore no application to this case. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.