Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 53210 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ali Ahamd Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shripraksh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahendra Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Counter affidavit filed by Shri Mahendra Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 8 is taken on record.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.1.1980 passed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O.) as well as against the orders dated 1.6.2012 and 1.8.2013 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C).
Through the order dated 12.1.1980, the C.O. has accepted the compromise allegedly signed by the parties. Karamat i.e. the predecessor of the petitioner is shown as one of the signatory to the compromise. The predecessor of the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 12.01.1980 passed by the C.O and in the said appeal, the respondents raised the plea that the appeal was not filed by the predecessor of the petitioner. In order to substantiate their aforesaid plea, the predecessor of the respondents filed an application praying that the signature of Karamat, i.e. the predecessor of the petitioner be compared with his signature on the compromise. The appellate Court vide its order dated dated 1.6.2012 allowed the aforesaid application filed by the respondents and the D.D.C through his order dated 1.8.2013 affirmed the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the S.O.C. The orders dated 12.1.1980 passed by the C.O. is under consideration in the appeal pending before the S.O.C.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court cannot examine the legality of the order dated 12.1.1980 passed by the C.O. The writ petition so far as it relates to order dated 12.1.1980 passed by the C.O. stands rejected.
The order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the S.O.C is an interlocutory order and ordinarily, under Article 226, the Courts do not interfere in interlocutory orders passed by the sub ordinate courts or tribunals. However, through the order dated 1.6.2012, the S.O.C has directed that the signature of Karamat on the appeal be compared with the signature on the compromise in order to ascertain whether the appeal was filed by Karamat , i.e. the predecessor of the petitioner.
It is relevant to note that in the appeal allegedly filed by Karamat, it has been pleaded that he was not a party or signatory to the compromise allegedly filed before the C.O.
In view of the fact that there is a dispute as to whether Karamat had signed or put his finger print on the compromise and the appeal, the S.O.C has erred in summoning the report of the finger print expert to compare the signature and the finger print of Karamat on the two documents i.e. the compromise and the appeal in order to ascertain whether the appeal was filed by Karamat or not.
The signature or finger print of Karamat on the appeal and the compromise are not admitted by the parties and both the parties deny the signature or finger print of Karamat on either appeal or the compromise.
In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the S.O.C is modified to the extent that the S.O.C shall call for the report of the expert to compare the signature or finger print of Karamat on the appeal allegedly filed by Karamat with his admitted signature or finger print. The proceedings pending before the S.O.C shall be completed within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 IB