Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 198 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kanhai @ Karan Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that against the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by Kanhai under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This appeal, after hearing counsel for the parties, was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2009. This order categorically records that it has been passed after hearing the parties.
Against this order, a restoration application was filed by the appellant and some of the respondents in the appeal praying that the appeal be decided on the basis of a compromise. On this application and in the interest of justice, the order dated 30.05.2009 was recalled, the appeal was restored to its original number and decided on the basis of the compromise.
Against this order, a belated restoration application was filed, which was dismissed on 28.05.2018. This restoration application was filed by Maan Singh and Smt. Udhaniya.
The consequential revision filed by the aforesaid persons has been allowed by the order dated 30.11.2018, the order dated 15.06.2009, which was the compromise order passed on the restoration application and the order dated 10.09.2018, which is the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, rejecting the restoration application of the opposite party, have been quashed. Hence this writ petition.
The appellate order dated 30.05.2009 was an order passed on the merits of the appeal after hearing the parties. This order was not ex-parte. Moreover, the restoration and compromise application filed against this order has been allowed without returning any finding that the order recalled was ex-parte. In fact, the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the restoration application records that it is passed in the interest of justice and the appeal is being decided on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
It is settled law that the consolidation authorities do not possess the power of review. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 15.06.2009 was not only patently illegal, it was wholly without jurisdiction. The restoration application filed by Maan Singh and Smt. Udhaniya against this order should necessarily have been allowed and the Settlement Officer Consolidation committed patent illegality in refusing to do so.
For the same reason, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 30.11.2018 has been passed for cogent and correct reasons. The order calls for no interference, as thereby substantial justice has been done between the parties. An order, which was patently illegal and wholly without jurisdiction, which had been obtained allegedly on the basis of a compromise has rightly been set aside. The compromise was in any case no compromise in the eye of law as it was not signed by the opposite parties namely Maan Singh and Smt. Udhaniya.
The writ petition, therefore, calls for no interference.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also challenged the order dated 30.05.2009, whereby the appeal had been dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on its merits after hearing the parties.
In my considered opinion, this order cannot be challenged before this Court. The petitioner, through dubious means, tried to circumvent this order passed on merits and by his dubious action, got this order reviewed allegedly on the basis of a compromise. The conduct of the petitioner therefore, is not one which would entitle him for grant of any sort of indulgence by this Court in its equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Under the circumstances, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Mayank