Back
2009 Supreme(All) 931
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ran Vijai Singh
AYODHYA SINGH
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE U P ALLAHABAD
Decided On : 27 March 2009
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8790 of 2007
Ajay Shankar, ANUJ KUMAR, Ayub Khan, H.N.SHARMA, M.K.Pandey, S.P.Bharti, TRIVENI SHANKAR,
The main legal point established is the importance of following procedural requirements, verifying compromises, and ensuring the satisfaction of the court before decreeing a suit.
Headnote:
ZAMINDARI ABOLITION - Disputed Land - U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, Section 176, 229-B - The court discussed the application of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, Sections 176 and 229-B, and emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements before entertaining an appeal and decreeing a suit in terms of a compromise. The court highlighted the necessity of verifying compromises and ensuring the satisfaction of the court before decreeing a suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a disputed land and filed a suit under Section 176 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. The respondent filed a suit under Section 229-B of the same Act, which was dismissed. An appeal was filed, and a compromise application was entertained without following procedural requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise application was entertained without obtaining necessary reports and without verifying the compromise. It emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements and ensuring the satisfaction of the court before decreeing a suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the procedural irregularities in entertaining the appeal and decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise, as well as the necessity of verifying compromises and ensuring the satisfaction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements, verifying compromises, and ensuring the satisfaction of the court before decreeing a suit.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue and allowed the pending appeal to proceed accordingly as per the order of the Additional Commissioner.
This writ petition has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 21. 12. 2006 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and the order dated 11. 5. 1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial), Gorakhpur Annexure 23 and Annexure 11 to the writ petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this-case are that one Shri Shambhu Singh who happened to be Bhumidhar of the disputed land sold 3/4 share of his holding through registered sale deed on 21. 6. 1976 to the petitioner No. 1 and remaining 1/4 share sold in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi, the petitioner No. 2.
3. For the part of the said holding a suit was filed by the petitioner No. 1 under Section 176 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act) against the petitioner No. 2. The said suit was decreed on 16. 7. 1979 and the several lots were carved out in favour of each petitioner. Plot No. 7 in the said lot was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 and plot No. 19 was allotted in favour of the petitioner No. 2. According to the petitioners, they have entered into the possession after the said decree on their respective shares.
4. It appears that the respondent No. 4, Banshraji has filed suit in the year 1983 under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, 1950 in respect of the disputed plots on the allegations that she may be declared as Bhumidhar of the aforesaid land as she had advanced money for purchasing the said land In her name. After contest the suit was dismissed as not maintainable on 31. 8. 94 by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However after dismissal of the suit Smt. Banshraji has filed a review application No. 23. 9. 1994 for reviewing the judgment and order dated 31. 8. 1994.
5. It appears pending review application the respondent No. 4 has also filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The appeal was numbered as 1/b of 1994. After the appeal was filed, the review application was dismissed on 1. 6. 1998 by the Court below.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the appeal was presented, there was no reporting with regard to the limitation etc. and the report was sought for that purpose from the office. In his submissions without obtaining any report, without fixing any date in the appeal and without issuing notice to the petitioners a compromise application was filed and the appeal was decided in terms of the compromise on 11. 5. 1999. It is alleged that the present petitioners were also shown to be signatories on the said compromise.
7. It is further alleged that while moving the compromise application, the order passed on the review application was not disclosed by the respondent No. 4. However, an amendment application was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner disclosing this fact that review application seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 3. 8. 1994 was dismissed on 1. 6. 1998.
8. When the petitioner came to know about the order dated 11. 5. 1999 passed on the compromise application, they have filed restoration application before Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. On that application, learned Commissioner vide order dated 7. 8. 1999 has stayed operation of the order dated 11. 5. 1999 passed by him on the compromise application.
9. Against the order dated 7. 8. 1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur the respondent No. 4 has filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue UP. at Allahabad and the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 7. 8. 1999 on 3. 5. 2000.
10. Against the order dated 3. 5. 2000, passed by Member, Board of Revenue, the petitioners have preferred writ petition No. 23511/2000, the said writ petition was allowed on 24. 4. 2003 and order dated 3. 5. 2000 passed by Member, Board of Revenue was quashed.
11. After quashing of the order dated 3. 5. 2000 the respondent No. 4 filed an objection to the restoration application filed by the petiti
