The petitioners have come up assailing the order dated 31st January, 2011 contending that the order is erroneous in law and on facts and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by upholding the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.08.2010.
It is to be noted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had allowed a time barred appeal at the instance of the respondent no. 3-Sudhir setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.08.1997, which was in favour of the vendors of the petitioners.
The petitioners claim to have acquired the plot in dispute on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 08.01.1999 and 13.09.1999. On the basis whereof, mutation was ordered in favour of the petitioners in the year 1999 itself under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
It is to be noted that the consolidation operations in the village have been denotified in the year 1991. It is also to be noted that an alleged proceeding under the provisions of Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were initiated at the instance of one Dharmpal-respondent no. 8 and Sarjeet-respondent no. 6 alleging that they were the real successors to the land recorded in the name of Smt. Sona Devi widow of late Surajbhan. It is alleged that a compromise was arrived at on 25.06.1997 and accordingly, on the strength of such a compromise, the Consolidation Officer passed an order directing that the name of the vendors of the petitioners be recorded as tenure-holders as against the share of Smt. Sona Devi. The pedigree which is the basis of dispute is extracted hereinbelow:
Har Chand Raja Ram Bharat Ami Singh Sukkhan Suraj Bhan Lavald (Dead) Sudhir (Adopted Son) Smt. Sona (Widow) (Dead) Jagdish Ranjeet Sarjeet Baljeet The aforesaid pedigree, insofar as, it relates to the adoption of Sudhir was allegedly denied by Sarjeet during the restoration proceedings as stated in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.
The respondent no. 3-Sudhir claiming himself to be the adopted son of Ami Singh and also a successor to the holding of Smt. Sona Devi after her death filed a restoration application dated 05.08.1998. The restoration application was rejected on 27.1.1999. Sudhir-respondent no. 3 had also simultaneously filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation against the order dated 19.08.1997.
The appeal filed by the said respondent was allowed on 30.08.2010. During the pendency of the said appeal, the present petitioners who are the pendente lite purchasers of the plot in dispute, moved an application for impleadment, which was allowed on 26.08.2010.
In between, the contesting respondents had allegedly filed a revision challenging the impleadment order which remained pending and was ultimately dismissed directing the parties to appear before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. A transfer application was also moved by the petitioners before the Consolidation Commissioner and the appeal was ultimately decided on 30.08.2010 setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and remanding the matter back to him for decision afresh.
It is this order which was assailed by way of two revisions and the same have been dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2011, impugned herein.
Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there was no ground for the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, inasmuch as, the notification under Section 52 of the Act had taken place on 23rd March, 1991 and there was no occasion for entertaining the appeal in relation to such an objection after such a long time. He further contends that the alleged compromise was a valid compromise and it had also been signed by Jagdish-respondent no. 5, the natural father of the contesting respondent Sudhir. In such a situation, this aspect has completely escaped, the notice of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which was essential as Sudhir had full knowledge of the proceedings as well as the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, but no steps were taken for seeking any declaration in relation to the sale deeds of the petitioners before the appropriate forum of civil court. He further contends that the name of the petitioners had already been entered into revenue records under the orders of the Tehsildar, which have not been challenged and, therefore, the petitioners have acquired a legal right over the land in dispute which cannot now be reopened by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the remand order. He, therefore, submits that the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation deserve to be set aside.
Sri Faujdar Rai further contends that the revision has been dismissed treating the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to be not final between the parties as an interlocutory order, which is also an erroneous approach in law. Sri Rai may be right, insofar as, the aforesaid observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is not a mere interlocutory order.
Nonetheless, on the merits of the matter, it is evident that there was no substantial delay on the part of the contesting respondents, inasmuch as, the order which was sought to be set aside in appeal was dated 19.08.1997. In such a situation, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was perfectly justified in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal.
On the merits of the claim, it is evident that a compromise was being made the basis for the order dated 19.08.1997. The respondent no. 3 admittedly was not a party to the said compromise even if his natural father Jagdish has signed the same. The respondent no. 3 was not claiming his rights through his natural father Jagdish but on account of his share being the alleged adopted son of Ami Singh. The respondent no. 3 is therefore claiming an independent right.
Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent, therefore, is right while making his submissions that the Consolidation Officer while proceeding to dispose of the matter ought to have taken notice of all the prospective heirs of the deceased Smt. Sona Devi and, therefore, the Consolidation Officer fell in error by not issuing any notice to the respondent no. 3 before having proceeded to accept the alleged compromise and decide the objections.
The other contention of Sri Sirohi has also to be accepted, inasmuch as, on the point of delay, the order itself was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 19.08.1997 long after the denotification. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has been decided much after the denotification in 1991 has, therefore, no substance.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
Dt. 14.03.2011 Akv