Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 26317 of 2015 Petitioner :- Indrajeet Singh Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Sonbhadra And 8 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B. Yadav AND Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2965 of 2015 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And 15 Others Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Sonbhadra And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Kumar Dubey,Manoj Kumar,R.B. Yadav AND Case :- WRIT - B No. - 12207 of 2015 Petitioner :- Parmanand Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Sonbhadra And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.K.Dubey.,R.B. Yadav AND Case :- WRIT - B No. - 12526 of 2015 Petitioner :- Kumar Prasad And 3 Ors Respondent :- Deuty Director Of Consolidation Sonbhadra And 7 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.K. Dubey,R.B. Yadav AND Case :- WRIT - B No. - 25920 of 2016 Petitioner :- Jokhu And 10 Ors.
Respondent :- D.D.C. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Babu Yadav
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. All the abovementioned writ petitions have been filed against the same orders passed by the consolidation authorities and were therefore connected by different orders of this Court and have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgement and order.
3. The facts of the case are that the total area of Plot No. 505 as recorded during the settlement was 512-12-0, i.e., 129.652 hectares. Subsequently, the village was put under survey record operations and after the survey record operations in the village, errors crept in the revenue records which reflected the total area of Plot No. 505 as 647-11-0, i.e., an excess area of 134-19-0, i.e., 34.144 hectares. Consequently, the basic year records also reflected the excess area of Plot No. 505. The excess area of Plot No. 505 shown in the revenue records was probably because of the fact that the original tenure holders had executed sale-deeds more than their share in Plot No. 505. Because of the excess area of Plot No. 505 shown in the revenue records, cases under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') were registered before the Consolidation Officer for correcting the basic year records relating to Plot No. 505. In their impugned orders, the consolidation authorities have recorded that, from the evidence on record, it was not possible to identify the tenure holders who had executed the sale-deeds more than their share in Plot No. 505 and the vendees in whose favour the said sale-deeds had been executed. Before the Consolidation Officer, a compromise was filed by all the tenure holders agreeing that 2 Biswa per every Bigha be reduced from the basic year records relating to the tenure holders and any excess area left in Plot No. 505 after the aforesaid reduction be expunged proportionately from the basic year records relating to the original tenure holders.
4. The compromise filed before the Consolidation Officer, showed the signatures of the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer after recording his finding that the available evidence was not helpful in deciding the dispute regarding the excess area and further in view of the compromise entered into between all the tenure holders and vendees of Plot No. 505 and in order to do equities in the case, decided the proceedings registered before him under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, i.e., the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 20.6.2007 directed that 2 Biswas per every Bigha be reduced from the shares of the tenure holders of Plot No. 505 and if any excess area is still left, the same shall be proportionately reduced from the shares of the original tenure holders of Plot No. 505.
5. Against the order dated 20.6.2007, the petitioners filed appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which were dismissed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 30.6.2011 and the consequential revision filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') vide his order dated 23.9.2014. It appears from the impugned orders passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. that before the appellate and the revisional court, the petitioners had raised the plea that the compromise was not signed by them and their signatures on the compromise were forged. However, the plea of the petitioners was rejected by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. The orders dated 20.6.2007, 30.6.2011 and 23.9.2014 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
6. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the consolidation authorities have wrongly decided the objections relying on the compromise which was not signed by the petitioners. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioners that at the time when the sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioners, the revenue records did not reflect any excess area of Plot No. 505 and the excess area crept in the revenue records relating to Plot No. 505 subsequently, and therefore, no area from the share of the petitioners could have been reduced in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 without the consent of the petitioners and should have been reduced from the shares of either the subsequent purchasers or from the share of the original tenure holders. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 20.6.2007, 30.6.2011 and 23.9.2014 passed by the consolidation authorities are contrary to law and are liable to be set aside.
7. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and also perused the records.
8. It is not denied that the compromise allegedly filed before the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 shows that the same was signed by the petitioners. The petitioners denied their signatures before the appellate and the revisional court. However, in their orders dated 30.6.2011 and 23.9.2014, the appellate and the revisional court have recorded a finding that the petitioners had not been able to prove that their signatures reflected on the compromise was forged and the compromise was not signed by the them. No document or evidence has been brought on record in the writ petition filed by the petitioners to show that the aforesaid findings of the appellate and the revisional court are contrary to the records of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the plea of the petitioners raised before the appellate and the revisional court that they have not singed the compromise was rightly rejected by the appellate and the revisional court.
9. Apart from the aforesaid, the alleged compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer. The proceedings culminating in filing of the compromise have been recorded by the Consolidation Officer in his order dated 20.6.2007.
The proceedings recorded in the orders passed by the consolidation authorities culminating in filing of the compromise have not been controverted by the petitioners. It was not stated by the petitioners either before the appellate or the revisional court and it has not been stated in the writ petition that the petitioners had no knowledge about the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer or of the fact that a compromise showing them to have signed the compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officers. The petitioners did not file any objections before the Consolidation Officer, who was the best authority to judge at the relevant time as to whether the compromise showing the signatures of the petitioners were forged or whether the compromise was signed by the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were ignorant of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer did not commit any error in deciding the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 relying on the compromise filed by the tenure holders which included the petitioners. The challenge to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was rightly rejected by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. Further, through their orders dated 20.6.2007, 30.6.2011 and 23.9.2014, the consolidation authorities had tried to balance the equities in the case, and therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions lack merit, and are, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Anurag/-