JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Impugned herein is the order dated 28.5.1993 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation by which compromise order dated 17.2.1975 in case No. 1129 under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act passed by Asstt. Consolidation Officer was set aside and plot Nos. 5622 and 5393 was directed to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property while relegating the matter to the Consolidation Officer for disposal afresh.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have also been taken through the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that it was passed ex parte and the finding that the compromise was a forged one and both father of the petitioners and then Pradhan of the village made a collusive combination cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that earlier there was limitation operating in relating to right to claim property but subsequently, amendment was made by which limitation came to be obliterated. Per contra, Sri A. K. Singh learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the property in question vested in Gaon Sabha and as a matter of fact, father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred a writ petition impugning order dated 11.2.1993 which culminated in being dismissed by means of order of the court dated 17.1.2000. Special leave to appeal preferred by the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also ended up in dismissal. It has been lastly submitted by the learned counsel that writ petition is a crude attempt on the part of the petitioners to grab the Gaon Sabha property.
4. From a perusal of record, it would transpire that it has not been gainsaid that plots in question were Gaon Sabha property. Initially, objections were filed by the father of petitioners. Subsequently, it is claimed that the father of the petitioners and the then Gram Pradhan entered into compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 17.2.1975. It is this compromise, which was set aside by means of impugned order. Since it is admitted position on record that property belonged to Gaon Sabha, it has not been established by any logic or reasons by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners or their father could acquire Gaon Sabha land on the basis of any right or that by any reckoning, they had acquired any bhumidhari rights over the property in question. The plea of adverse possession in view of admitted position that property belonged to Gaon Sabha, does not hold water. Besides, it may be noticed that Section 11C of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act casts a duty upon the Consolidation authorities to protect the interest of Gaon Sabha. In the light of the above provisions, the question of compromise or consequent order of the Asstt. Consolidation Officer was considered and jettisoned by this Court in its decision 17.1.2000 and it cannot be re-agitated by resort to the point of limitation which in my considered view is a metricious submission to prop up a second inning in this Court. It is crystal clear from the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act that question of limitation cannot be called in aid in relation to property which is admittedly Gaon Sabha property. The learned counsel has not been able to bear out that limitation has been fixed for acquiring, any right on the Gaon Sabha property on the basis of adverse possession. The law is too settled to be ignored on this count and I do not propose to make an idle parade of learning by dwelling upon this aspect at prolix length also considering that the matter journeyed upto Apex Court but with no success.
5. In the above conspectus, I am of the considered opinion that in view of duties cast on the Consolidation Authorities in Section 11C of the U.P.C.H. Act, the Deputy Director Consolidation rightly passed the impugned order and it cannot be questioned or assailed as no material irregularity or illegality has been pointed out. Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
6. Before parting, I feel constrained to notice that in the instant case, there is enough indication that the petitioners have made persistent attempts to continue their illegal possession over the Gaon Sabha property despite repeated failures upto the Apex Court. The present petition is again a desperate attempt to encroach upon Court's precious time by vexatious plea which did not find favour with this Court. In my considered view, it is a preeminently fit case in which the petitioners should be visited with costs which I quantify at Rs. 10,000. The petitioners are directed to hand over possession of the property of Gaon Sabha forthwith and till actual possession is handed over to the Gaon Sabha, the petitioners would be liable to pay compensation for their illegal possession for the entire period the land in question remained in illegal possession of the petitioners. It may be clarified that in case any such application is filed by the Gaon Sabha for determining the question of actual amount of mesne profits before the District Magistrate, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period not exceeding six months from the date of filing of such application by the Gaon Sabha.