Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 32593 of 2000 Petitioner :- Shanker & Others Respondent :- D.D.C., & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Singh,V.K. Chandel,V.K. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhiles Singh,Girija Shanker Srivastava,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,S. Alim Shah,Virendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 751.
The facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings held in the village, objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') were filed by the petitioners impleading Dudhai i.e. father of respondent nos. 2 and 3. On the said objections, Case No. 5590 was registered and an order dated 15.9.1970 is shown to have been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of some alleged compromise entered into between the petitioners and the father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Dudhai. The father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 denied the compromise alleging that he had never entered into any compromise with the petitioners. Subsequently, when Dudhai i.e. father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 came to know about the order dated 15.9.1970 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the changes in the revenue records effected on the basis of the aforesaid order, Dudhai filed an appeal against order dated 15.9.1970 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 16.1.1997 on the ground that the existence of compromise and order dated 15.9.1970 were proved by the report of the record room which was to the effect that the records of the alleged Case No. 5590 had been weeded out and which according to the opinion of Settlement Officer of Consolidation showed that the aforesaid case was registered. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.1997 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Dudhai filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation registering Revision No. 751 which was allowed vide order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
A perusal of the order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that after perusing the records of appeal, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the proceedings in appeal were also conducted fraudulently and the order dated 16.1.1997 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was antedated as the records of appeal showed that the case was fixed for 20.1.1997 for orders. In his order dated 24.5.2000, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also taken note of the fact that an order dated 20.1.1997 had been transcribed on the order-sheet reciting that the appeal was dismissed. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded an opinion that the proceedings in appeal culminating in order dated 16.1.1997 were also conducted fraudulently. In his order dated 24.5.2000, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also considered the findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation regarding existence of compromise and order dated 15.9.1970 passed on the basis of alleged compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly held that the destruction of records can not prove the existence of any alleged compromise between the petitioners and Dudhai. Further, on the basis of alterations and manipulations visible from a perusal of the revenue records as well as the report of the record room, the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that even the existence of any order dated 15.9.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer was doubtful. On the basis of his aforesaid findings, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the petitioners and set-aside the order dated 16.1.1997 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the alleged order dated 15.9.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer and restored the entries in the revenue records as they existed previous to the order dated 15.9.1970. The order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been passed after considering the materials available on record and there is no perversity or illegality in the aforesaid findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is admitted that Case No. 5590 was instituted by the petitioners under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. In case, as was alleged by Dudhai, that no compromise was entered into between himself and the petitioners, Case No. 5590 was liable to be decided on merits. Thus, the order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is modified to the extent that the Consolidation Officer shall decide Case No. 5590 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him after giving the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.
Withe the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Satyam