Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
BABU RAM - Appellant
Vs.
A.D.C. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 4348 of 1986
Decided on : 21-11-2017
Compromise - Property Dispute - 1984, 1985 - The court discussed the compromise between the parties and validated the sale-deeds executed in favor of the petitioners, quashing the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a property and later transferred it to the petitioners. The permission for transfer was later canceled, leading to a legal dispute. A compromise was reached between the parties, and the court validated the sale-deeds, quashing the impugned orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties led to the validation of the sale-deeds and the quashing of the impugned orders.
Issues: Property transfer permission cancellation, validity of sale-deeds, compromise agreement
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the compromise agreement between the parties, which led to the validation of the sale-deeds and the quashing of the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed based on the compromise between the parties, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.
B. Amit Sthalekar, J.
Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Sri V.K. Agarwal, Advocate has also been heard in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 25.1.2006.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.4, Pratap Singh purchased half share of plot nos. 196 area 0-7-0 and 197 area 2-2-0 and 198 area 0-8-0 situate in village Surajpur District Ghaziabad from one Chandru vide registered sale-deed dated 7.11.1981. Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 obtained permission from the Settlement Officer to transfer the said property to the petitioner Babu Ram and others. Permission was granted by the Settlement Officer on 16.1.1984 and later on extended on 7.3.1984. Accordingly, the land was transferred by Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 in favour of petitioner Babu Ram and others vide two registered sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984. These sale-deeds are stated to be intact till date and that the petitioners are absolute owners and in possession of the said property. Later on, the said Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 applied for cancellation of the permission orders dated 16.3.1984 and 7.3.1984. The said permission orders were cancelled by the Settlement Officer vide his order dated 20.12.1984.
3. This order dated 20.12.1984 was then challenged by the petitioners before the Consolidation court but was kept intact even up to the stage of the proceedings before the Additional Director of Consolidation. The various orders passed by the Settlement Officer and the Additional Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.
4. During pendency of this writ petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners and the said Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 and it has been stated that the sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984 be treated as valid and the names of the petitioners be mutated in the revenue record accordingly. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by Pratap Singh, respondent no.4, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit in support of the compromise application no. 311913 of 2017. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit (Annexure-1) it has been stated that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties the said Pratap Singh has no objection and agreed that the cancellation order dated 20.12.1984 by the Settlement Officer as well as the subsequent order dated 18.5.1985 passed by the Settlement Officer, the order dated 5.7.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the order dated 17.12.1985 passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation be quashed and set aside and the names of petitioner Babu Ram and others be mutated in the revenue records on the basis of registered sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984.
5. Sri V.K. Agarwal, Advocate, in the meantime, moved an impleadment application stating therein that Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of plot no. 198 with applicant Rajendra Singh Bhati son of Mahtab Singh. On this application the court passed the following order on 25.1.2006.
“The applicant is seeking impleadment on the strength of an agreement to sell executed by respondent no.4 in his favour. No vested right is created in favour of the applicant merely by an agreement to sell executed in his favour during the pendency of the proceedings. An apprehension has been expressed by the applicant that since respondent no.4 has entered into an agreement to sell he may not be interested in pursuing the case diligently. Even then also the applicant is not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the writ petition. However, in case the applicant seeking impleadment wants to contest the proceedings he may be heard at the time of hearing.
The application stands disposed of.”
6. In this order it has been clearly held by the court that th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
