Back
2004 Supreme(All) 372
2004 (3) AWC 2186
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Bhanwar Singh and S. K. Singh, JJ.
Writ Petition No. 11904 of 1981
Decided on February 27, 2004
Ram Naresh and others
Versus
Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others
Counsel for the Petitioners: R. S. Misra, R. C. Singh and A. K. Tripathi.
Counsel for the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, P. K. Singh and A. N. Singh, S.C.
The court can accept a compromise in a writ petition if it is genuine and does not contravene public interest, and the authority should examine it to ensure compliance with public policy.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - Zamindari Abolition Act, Section 9(1), Section 9(2), Section 11(1), Section 48(1) - The court discussed the petitioners' acquisition of khudkast rights, the objection by respondent No. 4 claiming co-tenure holder status, rejection of the petitioners' claim by the Consolidation Officer, and subsequent appeal and revision. The court also considered the compromise between the parties and its acceptance in the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders related to a land dispute where they claimed khudkast rights, but the authorities rejected their claim and favored respondent No. 4. A compromise was reached during the pendency of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the compromise between the parties and directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the contents of the compromise and decide the dispute, provided it did not contravene public policy as envisaged in the Consolidation Act.
Issues: Dispute over khudkast rights, rejection of petitioners' claim, acceptance of compromise, and the authority's role in examining the compromise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can decide a writ petition based on a compromise if it is genuine and not contrary to public interest. The compromise should be accepted to bring finality to the litigation, and the authority should examine it to ensure compliance with public policy.
Final Decision: The judgment passed in revision was quashed, and the dispute was directed to be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation based on the compromise reached between the parties.
Bhanwar Singh, J.—By virtue of this petition, the petitioner Shri Ram Naresh and two others have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17.8.1981 (Annexure-10), 7.1.1981 (Annexure-8) and 17.5.1980 (Annexure-7), passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow, Camp Padrauna and the Consolidation Officer-II, Deoria respectively.
2. According to the petitioners, Plots No. 1306, 1307/1, 1309, 1311, 1313 and 1319, area 5.5 acres belonged to Dil Mohammad, Umat
Yakub, Nasrullah and Mastedeen before the abolition of zamanindari. All of them surrendered their tenancy rights in the aforesaid land and ceased to have any concern with all the plots. The petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu, husband of the petitioner No. 3 entered into the possession over the entire land and in this way, they acquired khudkast right and eventually became bhumidhar on the date of vesting. However, due to the inadvertence on the part of the revenue authorities, the names of Dil Mohammad and other erstwhile tenure holders continued to be recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners moved for correction of the records by filing a case before the Tehsildar, Padrauna which was later transferred to Panchayat Adalat, Dadopur for decision. During pendency of the case relating to correction of papers, an objection was filed by Nasrullah and others but they subsequently executed registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu on 8.8.1952. Mastedeen died before execution of the sale-deed. The panchayat Adalat directed by its order of August 10, 1952 that the petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu be recorded khudkast holders of the land in dispute. As a matter of fact, Nasrullah and others admitted in the sale-deed executed by them that the petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu had khudkast rights in the land in question. In this way, the petitioners were recorded under Section 9 (1) of Zamindari Abolition Act as bhumidhars of the land in dispute but the respondent No. 4 Smt. Roshan Bibi filed an objection under Section 9 (2) claiming her to be the co-tenure holder of the land in question. The petitioners resisted her claim and alleged that Mastedeen died heirless and the petitioners became owners of the land in question on the basis of their long continuous possession. However, the Consolidation Officer during the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act rejected their claim and allowed the objection of Roshan Bibi and recorded a finding that she was the rightful claimant of her one fourth share in the land in dispute. Being aggrieved of the said order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Act but the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 7.1.1981 (Annexure-8). The petitioners then preferred a revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act on various grounds but the Assistant Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision vide his order dated 17.8.1981 (Annexure-10).
3. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the revisions, the petitioners filed this writ petition with the allegation that Roshan Bibi, respondent No. 4 was not the widow of Mastedeen and whatever the right Mastedeen had in the plots in question, was surrendered by him at the time of handing over possession over the entire land to the petitioners 1 and 2 and their brother Lal Babu. The petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu were the bona fide purchasers of the land from Nasrullah and others and as Nasrullah was sole heir of Mastedeen, the latter’s tenancy rights were also duly transferred by him. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the petitioners that they had acquired ownership over the land in dispute by adverse possession, a fact of which Roshan Bibi was aware of throughout. None of the authorities has appreciated the petitioners’ case and the evidence adduced in support thereof. The
