Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

Heard Sri K. C. Kishan Srivastav, for the petitioners and Sri K.N. Singh, for respondents.

2. Both the writ petition have been filed against common orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 15.02.2013, condoning delay and allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for trial before Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 21.01.2014, dismissing the revisions of the petitioners against aforesaid order, arising out of title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute between the parties relates to the land recorded on khatas 48, 53 and 56 of village Sagahat, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi. Three sets of objections were filed during consolidation in respect of the land in dispute, one by Smt. Matabi Devi, second by Bechan and others and third by Banshi, in the year 1992. Before the Consolidation Officer, three compromises were filed on 13.06.1994. The Consolidation Officer verified the compromises on 13.06.1994 and decided the objections in terms of the compromises by order dated 17.06.1994.

4. Ram Adhar filed three appeals from the aforesaid orders alleging that the compromises were not signed by him and the Consolidation Officer illegally decided the objections in terms of the compromise. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by his order dated 23.10.1998 found that compromises were not signed by Ram Adhar as such he allowed the appeals and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.06.1998 and remanded the cases for trial on merit. On the restoration applications filed by the petitioners, the orders dated 23.10.1998 were recalled by order dated 22.10.2003 and the appeals were restored to its original number.

5. In the meantime Matabi (respondent-5) also filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 136/934/1322/67) along with delay condonation application on 13.11.2003 and Bachchan (respondent-6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 137/937/1323/68) along with delay condonation application on 12.11.2003 against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 17.06.1998. It has been stated by these persons that their thumb impressions on the compromises were obtained by practicing fraud upon them and they could not know about the fact at that time. All the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 15.02.2013 held that the compromises were not signed by Ram Adhar and also several co-tenure holders. The Consolidation Officer illegally decided the objections on the basis of compromises. On these findings the appeals were allowed and orders dated 17.06.1998 were set aside and the cases were remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit.

6. The petitioners along with proforma respondents filed two revisions (registered as Revision No. 1316 and 1334) from the aforesaid order. In the meantime Ram Adhar died and Shiv Nath (respondent-4) was substituted as his heir. Shiv Nath filed an application dated 06.07.2013 before Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 15.02.2013 and restoring order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.06.1998. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 21.01.2014 found that as the compromises were not signed by all the parties as such orders of Consolidation Officer were illegal. On these findings, the revisions have been dismissed. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed.

7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Shiv Nath (heir of Ram Adhar) filed an application dated 06.07.2013 before Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 15.02.2013 and restoring order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.06.1998. Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have dismissed the appeals of Ram Adhar as not pressed and s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document