The present writ petition arises out of a dispute relating to the claim of petitioners on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed on 22nd June, 2006 by the tenure-holder Sri Sabir who is stated to have died on 23rd August, 2006.
Sri Siddharth Nandan learned counsel for the respondents 4, 5 and 6 contends that the petitioners have virtually purchased litigation and they are now trying to rake the issue after 17 years of the matter having been closed under a compromise dated 5.12.1985.
Sri Siddharth Nandan submits that the factum of the compromise could not be disproved and as a matter of fact it relates only to Plot No. 819 which concerns respondents 7 and 8 and not the petitioners. He further contends that the entire litigation which has been instigated on the highly time barred appeal filed by Sabir, in which the petitioners have got themselves impleaded and substituted, relates only to Plot No. 819 and not with regard to the sale deeds in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 and the land belonging to them. In such a situation, the petitioners through this litigation cannot forestal the payment of compensation to the answering respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 who have their independent title over the land through separate sale deeds and which nowhere concerns the petitioners.
It is further submitted that the sale deeds which have been executed in favour of the answering respondents were not even under challenge and it was only the order of compromise which was being disputed by late Sabir through a heavily time barred appeal in which the petitioners have now got themselves inserted after having virtually purchased the litigation from Sabir. He therefore submits that even otherwise the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, does not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions raised and it appears that the revisional order under challenge in this court arises out of an appellate order dated 12th October, 2009. The revision was entertained in which an interim order was passed.
Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 12.10.2009 writ petition No. 61768 of 2009 is alleged to have been filed which was dismissed on 17.11.2009. In that writ petition a recall application was filed by the petitioners alleging that no such writ petition had been filed by them and the said recall application has been allowed today by a separate order in writ petition No. 61768 of 2009. The writ petition has been dismissed keeping in view the fact that the revision had already been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation as noted above.
The position that emerges is that the revision survived and the same had to be decided on merits. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation heavily rests its findings on the judgment of this Court dated 17.11.2009. The said judgment has been recalled today and therefore in the opinion of the court the Deputy Director of Consolidation will now have to decide the matter afresh in the light of the contentions raised and noted herein above as also the matter pending before the authority without being influenced by the order of this court dated 17.11.2009.
Accordingly, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.6.2010 is set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall now decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order in the light of the observations noted herein above. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall take specific notice of the fact that the dispute as alleged by the respondents related only to Plot No. 819 and not to the plots of the contesting respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 while deciding the revision.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2011 Sahu