JUDGMENT Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of in dia has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 31.8.1981 [Annexure-2 to the petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner. Bareilly Division, Bareilly and order dated 9.7.1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition) passed by the Board of Revenue and further for relief of writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute on the basis of the Impugned orders of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 or on any other basis.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition as stated by the petitioners are that plot No. 198 measuring 3.25 acres of village Naugawan. Pargana Pooranpur district Pillibhlt was recorded in the basic year khatauni at the time of consolidation in the name of Raghubir Sahal. One Smt. Ram Dulari filed an objection under Section 9A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming l/3rd share in the said plot on the basis of the family pedigree. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Smt. Ram Dulari. She preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed on 1.3.1968, thereafter, the revision filed by her was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 26.4.1968 and notification under Section 52 of the Act was made on 16.8.1969. Raghubir transferred the holding in suit on 26.8.1969 in favour of Data Ram, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Then she filed a review application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 4.12.1969 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merit.
3. It is stated that when the matter reached to the Consolidation Officer. Data Ram, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed application for impalement, claiming that Raghubir Sahal had sold the land in dispute to him on 26.8.1969, therefore, he should be Impleaded. Petitioner's contention is that the parties entered into compromise before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case in terms of the compromise and before the Consolidation Officer, Data Ram, father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 made a statement that as there has been a compromise in the case between Smt. Ram Dulari and Raghubir Sahai, therefore, he does not want to say anything and his application for impalement may be rejected. Accordingly, on the basis of the compromise dated 11.5.1970, Smt. Ram Dulari was given l/3rd share and this order became final, then Smt- Ram Dulari executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 25.6.1971 and since then, the petitioners are in continuous possession, it is further stated that as Data Ram had threatened the petitioners to take possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P.C, were started and that was decided in favour of the petitioners and land in dispute was released in favour of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners have alleged that Data Ram, father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed a suit under Section 229B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) but it was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.5.1974, then Data Ram again filed a Suit No. 21 of 1978-79 under Section 229B/209 of U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act which was dismissed on 18.10.1979 by the trial court. An appeal was filed by Data Ram against the judgment passed by the trial court and during the pendency of the appeal, he died and his heirs, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were substituted. The appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 31.8.1981. The petitioner filed a Second Appeal against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 9.7.1982. The petitioners have challenged these two Judgments by way of the present writ petition.
5. The grounds of attack against the Impugned judgment by the petitioners are that the suit which was filed by Data Ram was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, therefore, the impugned judgment is illegal it was contended that the findings of the Courts below that the right of Raghubir Sahai were extinguished under Section 189 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on executing the sale deed dated 27.8.1969 in favour of Data Ram is also incorrect, it is also contended that the findings of the Court below that Ram Dulari filed a review application in collusion with Raghubir is also incorrect, it is further contended that Data Ram has filed application before the Consolidation Officer when the matter was remanded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the review application of Smt. Ram Dulari and a compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer in presence of Data Rani and Smt. Ram Dulari was given one-third share and Data Ram gave a statement that he does not want to press the application for impleadment therefore, the principle of estoppel will apply against Data Ram and Data Ram was bound by the compromise filed before the Consolidation Officer and thereafter, when Raghubir Sahai executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Data Ram could not say that he is not bound by the compromise, it was further contended that the findings given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before the notification under Section 52 of the Act was not final, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to review the judgment and parties are bound by the judgment given by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the compromise.
6. A counter-affidavit was filed. in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the sale deed was executed, after denotification under Section 52 of the Act, in favour of Data Ram by Raghubir Sahai, therefore, the right, title, and interest of Raghubir Sahai in the plot in dispute were extinguished under Section 189 of U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act. When proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were started, Smt. Ram Dulari claimed her share but she lost her case from the Courts of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and finally from the Deputy Director of Consolidation and then, there was a notification under Section 52 of the Act. Data Ram purchased property from Raghubir Sahal subsequent to the Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision after denotification, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the review application filed by Smt. Ram Dulari and remand the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh. The order of remand is without jurisdiction and nullity. it is further contended that as Data Ram was not a party in the consolidation proceedings and he had only applied for being impleaded before the Consolidation Officer after remand and as the order of remand was itself without Jurisdiction, therefore, even If Data Ram gave a statement that his application for impalement may be rejected, he is not bound by the compromise arrived at between Raghubir Sahai and Smt. Ram Dulari as he was not party to the Consolidation proceedings and principle of estoppel will not apply against him. Further contention is that when Raghubir had already sold the, property in favour of Data Ram and on the basis of conclusive compromise that too in the proceedings which was Illegal and without jurisdiction, no right of Raghubir Sahai could be curtailed and he has no right to make second transfer of property in favour of the petitioners on the basis of compromise and suit was not barred under Section 49 of the Act, it is further contended in the counter-affidavit that even after dismissal of the application of Data Ram for impleadment and his statement, if any, cannot take away the right which was acquired by him on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.8.1969.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The trial court dismissed the suit of Data Ram with the finding that he was bound by his statement given before the Consolidation Officer after the case was remanded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the review application, it was also held by the trial court that if the revision which was filed by Smt. Ram Dulari was pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation before the date of notification under Section 52 of the Act, then the review application was maintainable and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case to Consolidation Officer was not without jurisdiction and as the right of Smt. Ram Dulari and Raghubir Sahai were decided on the basis of the compromise, the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Section 49 of the Act. Learned Commissioner on the appeal filed by the plaintiff Data Ram, who died during the pendency of the appeal held that when notification under Section 52 was made and Data Ram purchased the property from Raghubir after denotification, then the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no authority or Jurisdiction to entertain the review application filed by Smt. Ram Dulari, it has also been held by the first appellate court that on 26.8.1969, the right, interest and title of Raghubir Sahai was extinguished under Section 189 of U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act, the appeal was accordingly allowed, in the Second Appeal filed by the petitioners, the Board of Revenue has held that after the denotification under Section 52 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the review application and remand the case before the Consolidation Officer, therefore, the order of remand being without jurisdiction is nullity.
8. Before deciding the controversy, it is necessary to see the effect of Section 189 of U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act. This provision of law deals with the extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights. Section 189 of U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act is quoted below :
"189. Extinction of the in terest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights.-The interest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished :
(a) when he dies intestate leaving no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act :
(aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act :
(b) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land : or
(c) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation."
9. A bare perusal of this provision would show that on 26.8.1969 when Raghubir Sahai who was recorded in the revenue record transferred his holding after the Judgment was delivered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his favour and a notification was made under Section 52 of the Act, then whatever right Raghubir Sahai had come to an end under Section 189 of U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that from the judgment of the Consolidation Officer, it is apparent that' the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision was not final, therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue is not correct and compromise is binding.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged, in reply, that as there was no Jurisdiction with the Deputy Director of Consolidation to entertain the review application, therefore, any proceeding after denotification under Section 52 of the Act was without jurisdiction and Data Ram who was not party to any proceedings, he is not bound by the compromise merely because he filed application and got it rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents has further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising power of revision vested in him under the Act exercises quasi-judicial powers and in the absence of any provision in the Consolidation Act, which expressly or by necessary Implication vests in him the power of review, he cannot exercise such power. For that purpose, he has placed a Full Bench case in Smt. Shivrajt and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad and others, 1997 All LJ 2363.
11. A bare perusal of this decision would show that Full Bench in paragraph 24 of the judgment has held as under :
"On the authoritative pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position which is manifest is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising the power of revision vested in him under the Consolidation Act exercises quasi-judicial powers and in the absence of any provision in the Consolidation Act, which expressly or by necessary implication vests in him the power of review, he cannot exercise such power, it follows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not competent to revive a revision proceedings disposed of by a final order on a review application filed by one of the parties."
12. Further on the point of jurisdiction, the finding was given by the Full Bench in paragraph 35, which is reproduced as under :
"Coming to the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises Judicial or quasi-Judicial power and, therefore his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authorities under the Act. The Consolidation authorities particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceedings and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as Judicial or quasi-Judicial authority, he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error manifest error in his order in exercise of his 'Inherent power as a tribunal."
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at length, I am of the view that this writ petition has no force. From a perusal of the documents available on record, and the judgments, it is clear that Data Ram had purchased the property on 26.8.1969 and revision by Smt. Ram Dulari before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was dismissed on 26.8.1968 and the notification under Section 52 of the Act was made on 16.8.1969, the review was allowed on 4.12.1969 and compromise was arrived at on 8.9.1970. The petitioners purchased the property from Raghubir Sahai on 25.6.1971, therefore. Data Ram father of opposite parties being the first-purchasers, in time acquired right, title and interest on the basis of the sale deed and right, title and interest of Raghubir Sahai came to an end in respect of the property in question on that date, therefore, he had no right to enter in to compromise before the Consolidation Officer and to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. I am also of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case before the Consolidation Officer was also without jurisdiction as after notification under Section 52 of the Act, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the review application and remand the case. Since Data Ram has simply applied for the impalement before the Consolidation Officer when he was not party, the Judgments of the Consolidation authorities, if he got his application dismissed for any reason, it would not amount to admission of right, title and interest of Smt. Ram Dulari or will not operate as estoppel against him so far as right which he acquired on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.8.1969, therefore, the order of the Consolidation authorities, on the compromise cannot be said to be a bar under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act rather Smt. Ram Dulari and Raghubir Sahai were bound by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision which was decided on 26.4. ] 968 which was final.
14. The writ petition, therefore, has no force and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.