JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are Involved. They are also directed against the same orders passed by the authorities below in the case relating to same property (in Writ Petition No. 24110 of 2001 only order dated 19.6.2001, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged while in Writ Petition No. 24875 of 2001 said order dated 19.6.2001, as well as order dated 12.1.2001, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have been challenged). Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 24110 of 2001 shall be the leading case.
2. Dispute relates to Khata Nos. 118, 130, 31 and 115 of village Chandayan, district Rampur, for short 'the land in dispute'. In the basic year, . the land in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners (Khata No. 118 was recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1, Khata No, 130 in the name of petitioner No. 2, Khata No. 31 in the name of petitioner No. 3 and Khata No. 115 in the name of petitioner No. 4 of the leading case). The contesting respondents, second set, Himmat Singh and others, got their names recorded on the land in dispute vide order dated 16.11.1994 by filing an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that there was a compromise between the parties. They also relied upon a family settlement. The aforesaid order was passed ex parte. When the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order, they got the record of the case inspected through an advocate immediately and thereafter preferred four belated appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation along with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applications filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay were allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 24.7.1996. The contesting respondents filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the order dated 24.7.1996. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the said revisions by his Judgment and order dated 28.11.1997. The petitioners, thereafter approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 7519 of 1998. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 8, Arjun Sahakari Samlti also filed a belated objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer condoned the delay by his order dated 20.12.1996. Petitioners thereafter filed revision against the said order, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment and order dated 28.11.1997. The petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 7520 of 1998 in this Court. While the aforesaid petitions were pending in this Court, respondent No. 2, State of Uttar Pradesh which was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, preferred four highly belated appeals against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1994, after six years of the order with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the respondent No. 2, in brief, was that the compromise and the family settlement relied upon by Kulbir Singh and others were collusive, therefore, they amounted to illegal transfers. Consequently, land in dispute vested in the State as provided under Section 189 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
3. After condoning the delay, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeals filed by the State of U. P. but instead of granting relief to the State Government directed the names of the petitioners of the leading case to be recorded on the land in dispute in the revenue papers after setting aside the order dated 16.11.1994, by his order dated 12.1.2001. Therefore, the petitioner applied for possession over the land in dispute before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The application filed by the petitioners was allowed and possession was delivered to them on 13.1.2001. After the judgment and order was passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, eight revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation ; four by the State of Uttar Pradesh and other four by the respondents, second set, i.e., Himmat Singh and others. The revisions filed by the respondents, Himmat Singh and others were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while the revisions filed by the State of U. P. were allowed holding that the land in dispute vested in the State by his common judgment and order dated 19.6.2000, hence the present two petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading case vehemently urged that the petitioners as they came to know about the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 16.11.1994, since very beginning have been contesting the case tooth and nail. They were themselves contending that order dated 16.11.1994 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the same was passed on the basis of forged and fraudulent compromise and family settlement, prepared by the contesting respondents for usurping their land. It was contended that they have never entered into compromise nor there was any family settlement between the contesting respondents and petitioners. There was, therefore, no justification for the State of U. P. to intervene in the matter and to file highly belated appeals. It was also contended that the appeals filed by the State were legally not maintainable and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also liable to be dismissed as the same was not supported by any affidavit and delay in filing the appeals was not explained in accordance with law. It was also urged that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeals. It was also urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted wholly illegally and committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record in holding that the land in dispute vested in the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading case, however, tried to support the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the extent It directed the names of his clients to be recorded on the land in dispute.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was quite legal inasmuch as the same was passed on the basis of a validly executed compromise and family settlement. The authorities below acted Illegally In holding to the contrary. It was urged that the contesting respondents on the basis of the compromise and family settlement are not entitled to the land in dispute. It was contended that admittedly, the State Government was not the party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, therefore, the appeals filed by it were legally not maintainable. According to him, the judgment and order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, they were, therefore, liable to be quashed.
6. Learned standing counsel although attempted to support the validity of the Impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but ultimately fairly conceded that it was not a case covered by Section 189 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as both the parties were contesting the cases tooth and nail since very beginning and for the reason, the State Government was not the party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, therefore, there was no justification for the State to intervene In the matter:
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record.
8. It is not disputed that the land in dispute was recorded In the names of the petitioners (in the leading case) in the basic year. It is also a fact that at the instance of contesting respondents, the names of the petitioners were expunged from the revenue papers and the land in dispute was directed to be recorded in the names of contesting respondents by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by his order dated 16.11.1994. It is also on the record that against the order dated 16.11.1994, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation along with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as soon as they came to know about it. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation condoned the delay and fixed a date for hearing of the appeal. The contesting respondents against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 28.11.1997, allowed the said revision and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 7519 of 1998 in this Court. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioners (in the leading case) have been contesting the case tooth and nail from the very beginning. The Writ Petition No. 7519 of 1998 filed by them against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been allowed by this Court on 15.11.2002. Thus, the appeal which was pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall now be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
9. Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it cannot be said that the alleged compromise and the family settlement were in any manner collusive or that the petitioners in the leading case have slept over their rights. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, to the contrary, is manifestly erroneous and illegal. It cannot be said that the said compromise amounted to illegal transfer on account of which the land in dispute vested in the State. Learned standing counsel, as stated above, fairly conceded that it was not a case for interference by the State particularly when the Gaon Sabha which was a party to the proceedings did not file any application or appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, dated 16.11.1994.
10. So far as the question of maintainability of the appeals filed by the State Government is concerned, as admitted by learned standing counsel, the State Government was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It, therefore, had no right to file the appeals in view of the amended provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Act, which reads as under :
"11. Appeals.--(1) Any party to the proceedings under Section 9A, aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer under that section, may, within 21 days of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who shall after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, concerned, give his decision thereon which, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final and not be questioned in any court of law."
11. The aforesaid statutory provision came up for interpretation before this Court in Writ Petition No. 36233 of 1991, Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and Anr., decided on 3.12.2O02. This Court after referring to the provisions of Section 11, held as under ;
"A reading of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that an appeal can be filed only by a party to the proceedings. It is well-settled in law that right of appeal, revision or review are the statutory rights. They are conferred by the statutes and unless conferred, they can not be availed of by any person and no authority can entertain an appeal, revision or review unless the said authority is authorized by the statute to entertain the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was, thus, right in holding that the aforesaid petitioners were not the party to the proceedings and they had no right to file an appeal. The appeal filed by them was legally not maintainable."
12. Further, Section 47 of the Act provides as under :
"4 7. Appeals, etc., to be allowed by Act.--No appeal and no application for revision shall lie from any order passed under the provisions of this Act except as provided by or under this Act.
13. The aforesaid section clearly provides that no appeal and no application for revision shall lie from any order passed under the Act except as provided by or under the Act. Thus, all the appeals filed by the State Government, in which the State Government, admittedly, was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after six years against the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in entertaining the said appeals. Further, having refused to grant any relief to the State Government, there was no justification for the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to grant relief in favour of the petitioners in the connected case. He could at the best remand the case to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for referring the matter to the Consolidation Officer for decision. The order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 12.1.2001 is, thus, Illegal and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading case attempted to say that the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was in favour of his clients, was valid and lawful. He referred to and relied upon the decision in the case of Palakdhari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and Ors., 1992 (1) AWC 228 : 1992 RD 111. In the said decision, question of maintainability of an appeal under Section 11 of the Act by a person who was not a party to the proceeding was neither raised nor considered by the Court. Therefore, no advantage can be claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the said case. What was decided by the Court in the said case was to the effect that the petitioner, who was a member of the Gaon Sabha could file an objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. It may be noted that Section 11 of the Act was amended by the U. P. Act No. VIII of 1963. Before amendment, the words used were "any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 9 or the Consolidation Officer under Section 10", but after the amendment, the words "person aggrieved" have been deleted and in the place the words "any party to the proceedings under Section 9A aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer under that section" have been substituted. In view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, referred to above, the appeals filed by the State Government were legally not maintainable. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have acted illegally and In excess of their jurisdiction in entertaining the appeals and revisions filed by the State Government, as the State Government was not a party to the said proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and in allowing the same. Impugned orders passed by the authorities below are, thus, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both these petitions deserve to be allowed.
15. Both these petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 12.1.2001 and 19.6.2001, referred to above, are hereby quashed. It is, however, observed that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation before whom the appeal filed by the petitioners of the leading case is pending, shall decide the appeal expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence to the parties, in accordance with law.
A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of the connected writ petition.