Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3181 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Kumari Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey,Sarvendra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri A.K. Singh on behalf of respondent no. 3 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present writ petition, the orders passed in a proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Consolidation Officer and the revisional court are under challenge.
A perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act was moved on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1989 executed by Mainalal. During the pendency of the said proceeding, Mainalal, the vendor died. His heirs were substituted and notices were issued. Heirs of the vendor namely Prem Bahadur Srivastava, Pannalal Srivastava, Deendayal Srivastava and Kunwar Bahadurlal Srivastava appeared before the Consolidation Officer and entered into a compromise. They agreed to the extent that the name of the vendee be recorded on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 13.12.1989 executed by their father. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 13.4.2012 was sought to be challenged in appeal by the petitioner namely Ram Kumari who got a sale deed dated 1.2.2012 from Pannalal Srivastava, one of the sons of the vendor during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 12 of the C.H. Act.
After getting the said sale deed with regard to 1/4 shares of Pannalal in the holdings of Maina Lal, the appeal was filed with the assertion that Smt. Ram Kumari i.e. the appellant was not heard though she was recorded tenure holder on the date of the order.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 13.4.2012 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer remitting the matter back to decide afresh. Aggrieved, the contesting respondent had filed revision which was allowed vide order dated 15.12.2017 setting aside the order passed by the appellate court and affirming the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
This order is under challenge in the present writ petition with the assertion that at no point of time, the purchaser namely Smt. Ram Kumari was substituted in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act initiated by the vendee of the sale deed dated 13.12.1989. The revisional court, therefore, ought not to have been interfered in the remittal order passed by the appellate court. Further, it is submitted that the sale deed dated 13.12.1989 is a void document inasmuch as the same was not duly executed. There was no question of maintaining the order of mutation based on the said sale deed.
Insofar as the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer with regard to the compromise arrived between the heirs of the vendor and the vendee, after they were substituted in the proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, nothing much could be stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His only submission was that Pannalal did not appear before the Consolidation Officer.
However, it is noteworthy that at no point of time, Pannalal, one of the sons of the original tenure holder (vendor) came forward to dispute his signatures on the compromise which was made basis of the order dated 13.4.2012.
Even otherwise, in case of any dispute with regard to the signature of Pannalal, a recall application was required to be moved before the same Court.
Even otherwise, no such ground has been taken by the petitioner in the appeal filed against the order dated 13.4.2012. The challenge with regard to the validity of the sale deed dated 13.12.1989 raised for the first time in the present writ petition cannot be entertained.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that compromise was not signed by Pannalal was also not a ground to assail the order of the Consolidation Officer.
New grounds cannot be permitted to be raised in the writ petition.
The revisional court has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the order based on a compromise could not have been recalled by the appellate court in such manner.
In case of any right of the petitioner over the land in question, it would be open for her to press the same against his vendor namely Panna Lal. The present proceedings are based on the sale deed executed by the recorded tenure holder during his life time. The said sale deed has not been cancelled by any court of law.
For all the noted reasons, this Court finds that the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the order passed by the revisional court and the Consolidation Officer are not tenable.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Brijesh