Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1144 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramawati Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Sharma
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Present writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953( in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act"). Petitioner has filed an application under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act for the partition of the property in question among all co-sharers. In the aforesaid application, both the parties have entered into a compromise dated 27.04.2015 and on the basis of aforesaid compromise, Consolidation Officer has passed an order on the same day. Feeling aggrieved, Teni(respondent no.4), who was allegedly one of the signatory of the compromise has filed an appeal dated 06.07.2017(Annexure No.3) before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation challenging the validity of compromise as well as order dated 27.04.2015 on the ground that order dated 27.04.2015 is perverse and contrary to record. It is also averred in the appeal that no proper inspection was conducted before passing the order.
Settlement Officer of Consolidation has dismissed the aforesaid appeal on the ground that order was passed on the basis of compromise and accordingly, share of the parties have been allocated and compromise is valid under Rule 25A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the orders passed by S.O.C. and C.O. pointing out several discrepancies in the compromise including the validity of the signature of Teni(respondent no.4) as well as non-compliance of provision under Rule 25-A of U.P.C.H. Rules.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that D.D.C. has allowed the revision totally on new grounds which were not taken before the S.O.C. Plea of forged signature of Teni and non-compliance of provision as contained under Rule 25A of U.P.C.H. Rules have been taken for the first time before D.D.C. who has illegally remitted the matter before C.O. only to facilitate respondent no.4. No other co-sharer has shown his grievance against the compromise order.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 to 12, returnable at an early date.
Let the petition be listed in the week commencing 27.09.2021.
In the meantime, both the parties are directed to exchange their respective affidavits.
Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of order dated 07.06.2021 passed by D.D.C. shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Sachin