Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5564 of 1985 Petitioner :- V. Singh Respondent :- D.D.C.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- V.Singh,H.S. Nigam,M.A. Haseem,Rishi Ram,S.C.,S.S. Nigam
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Anil Sharma, counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Margret Roberts, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.S. Nigam, counsel for respondent no. 6.
During the consolidation operations in the village, the petitioner filed objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 against the entries in the basic year Khatauni where the petitioner was shown to be having 3/5 share in the disputed plots. The petitioner claimed 1/3 share in the disputed plots. The objections of the petitioner were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 19.1.1984 and the consequential appeal and revision were also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 7.8.1984 and by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 14.1.1985 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. While passing the aforesaid orders, the consolidation authorities relied on a compromise decree dated 13.8.1968 passed by the concerned revenue court in proceedings registered under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') for partition of the disputed plots between the petitioner and the contesting respondents.
It was argued by the petitioner before the consolidation authorities and before this Court that the compromise decree dated 13.8.1968 passed in proceedings registered under Section 176 of the Act, 1950 were void because at the time the decree was passed the petitioner was minor and the decree was passed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed in Order 32 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further the decree could not have been passed in as much as there was an arbitration agreement between the parties regarding their share in the disputed plots.
The compromise decree dated 13.8.1968 was only voidable against the petitioner and not void and the petitioner took no step to get the aforesaid decree set-aside. Thus, the decree was binding on the petitioner and the consolidation authorities committed no error while relying on the said decree in dismissing the objections of the petitioner. Further, a reading of the order of the Consolidation Officer as annexed with the writ petition shows that it was argued by the petitioner before the Consolidation Courts that there was an award of the arbitrator giving 1/3 share to the petitioner in the disputed plots. However, there is nothing on record before this Court to show that the award passed by the arbitrator was made a decree of the court. No illegality has been committed by the consolidation authorities relying on the compromise decree while dismissing the objections of the petitioner. The findings of the consolidation authorities are concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Satyam