Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.
SUSHIL KUMAR - Appellant
Vs.
D.D.C. GORAKHPUR - Respondent
Writ-B No. 377 of 1986
Decided on : 07-10-2017
For the Appellant :D.S. Mishra, O.S. Mishra, R.C. Mishra and Ram Niwas Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:V.B. Khare, A.N. Singh, B.N. Singh, H.N. Singh and J.S. Audichya, Advocates
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule-25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, and the significance of following the prescribed procedure for the sanctity of compromise and the finality of decisions during consolidation.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings - Dispute over land consolidation - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9, Rule-25-A - The court discussed the mandatory provisions of Rule-25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, regarding the recording of conciliation in the presence of two members of the Consolidation Committee and the necessity of their signatures. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for the sanctity of compromise and the finality of decisions during consolidation.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over the land of basic consolidation year khatas 207, 346, and 358 of a village. The petitioner filed time-barred appeals challenging the conciliation and order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeals, finding irregularities in the conciliation process. The respondent filed revisions against these orders, which were allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner then filed a writ petition against the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conciliation process did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule-25-A of the Rules, rendering the conciliation and subsequent orders irregular and vitiated. The court also noted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had mechanically allowed the revisions without considering the reasons recorded by the appellate court and without relevant considerations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule-25-A of the Rules regarding the recording of conciliation in the presence of two members of the Consolidation Committee and the necessity of their signatures, as well as the irregularities in the conciliation process and subsequent orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule-25-A of the Rules and the importance of following the prescribed procedure for the sanctity of compromise and the finality of decisions during consolidation. It also highlighted the need for compliance with procedural requirements and the jurisdictional limitations of the revisional authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were set aside, while the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation were upheld.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, for the contesting respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14.10.1985 (Annexures-15) passed in Revision No. 795/848/600/412/374 Shubhkaran v. Sushil Kumar and others and 14.10.1985 (Annexures-19) passed in Revision No. 604/5008 Shubhkaran v. Sushil Kumar and others, Revision No. 605/5010 Shubhkaran v. Sushil Kumar and others and Revision No. 606/5009 Shubhkaran v. Sushil Kumar and others, arising out of title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Dispute between the parties is in respect of land of basic consolidation year khatas 207, 346 and 358 of village Chiuraha Mau Pakar, pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur (at present Mahrajganj). In basic consolidation year, names of Damodar Prasad, Babu Lal, Shubhkaran and Sushil Kumar sons of Peet Ram were recorded over Khata 207 [consisting plots 1410 (area 0.16 acre) and 1443 (area 1.155 acre)], names of Babu Lal, Shubhkaran and Sushil Kumar sons of Peet Ram were recorded over Khata 346 [consisting plots 1409 (area 0.035 acre) and 1410 (area 0.10 acre)] and names of Babu Lal, Shubhkaran and Sushil Kumar sons of Peet Ram were recorded over Khata 358 [consisting plot 1418/2 (area 0.05 acre)].
4. Shubhkaran (respondent-7) filed three objections on 30.04.1977 i.e. Case No. 8723, for khata 207, Case No. 8898, for khata 346 and Case No. 8915, for khata 358, under Section 9 of the Act, for deleting the names of other recorded tenure holders, stating therein that disputed land was acquired by him through sale deed and the names of his other brothers were wrongly recorded in it. Case No. 8916, for khata 358, was registered as at the time of partal, area of plot 1418/2 was noted as 0.035 acre and recorded tenure holders have raised dispute in this respect, as noted in CH Form-4. Shubhkaran (respondent-7) in his objection has stated that during partal area of plot 1418/2 was correctly noted as 0.035 acre.
5. According to respondent-7, the parties compromised their dispute before Assistant Consolidation Officer. Other brothers of Shubhkaran (respondent-7) agreed that their names were wrongly recorded over disputed land and their names be deleted. In view of compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer recorded conciliation in all the three cases which were signed by the parties and two members of consolidation committee on 07.07.1977. Assistant Consolidation Officer by his order dated 07.07.1977 directed for deleting the names of other brothers of Shubhkaran from all the three khatas.
6. Sushil Kumar (the petitioner) filed three time barred appeals along with delay condonation application i.e. Appeal No. 214/552/1211, from order dated 07.07.1977 passed in Case No. 8723 and Appeal No. 215/553/1212, from order dated 07.07.1977 passed in Case No. 8898. These appeals were filed on 04.07.1978. Appeal No. 241/609/1275, from order dated 07.07.1977 passed in Case No. 8915 and 8916, was filed on 29.07.1978. He took grounds that no notice was served upon him by Assistant Consolidation Officer nor he ever appeared before him, his signatures on the conciliation dated 07.07.1977 were fabricated. The appeals were heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 14.12.1979 passed in Appeal No. 241/609/1275, found that as in memorandum of appeal and affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, signing of conciliation was denied as such delay was liable to be condoned. On the conciliation, signatures of the parties were on top and in bottom in right margin. Signature of Shambhu Saran, member of consolidation committee was in middle and there is no signature of other member of consolidation committee. As such conciliation was not signed by two members of consolidation committee, which is mandatory un
