Rights in land cannot be conferred through compromises without establishing ancestral property status, rendering such agreements unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.) :

1. Heard Sri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as also Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'D.D.C.'), in Revision No. 340 of 2011 (Rameshwar & Others vs. Shrichand & Others).

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) One Bhawani died leaving behind his four sons namely Jagannath, Niranjan, Makka and Mangre (issue less). The pedigree indicated in Para 4 of the petition is as under:-

(ii) It is alleged that Bhawani was the original tenure holder of the land in issue i.e. Khata No.371 but to establish this fact, no document has been placed on record.

(iii) The name of Makka S/o Bhawani was recorded in the basic year Khatauni of Khata No.371. At the time of initiation of consolidation proceedings in the village namely Khaithava, Pargana- Nighasan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, in terms of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings, Act, 1953 (is short the ‘Act’) and Rules of 1954 made thereunder, the name of Makka S/o Bhawani was recorded in revenue records.

(iv) A compromise was filed on 31.07.1975 before Assistant Consolidation Officer (A.C.O.) in regard to Khata No.371. In this Compromise it was prayed that in place of late Makka S/o Bhawani, the names of Rambilas S/o Makka, Girdhari S/o Niranjan, Mohanlal S/ o Niranjan and Jagannath S/o Bhawani be mentioned in revenue records of Khata No. 371.

(v) The A.C.O. rejected the proposal of CH Form 4 and directed to enter the name of Rambilas S/o Makka in revenue records.

(vi) It would be apt to indicate that contesting respondents No.4 to 6 namely Rambilas, Ram Bahadur and Ramesh Kumar are sons of Rambilas.

(vii) Being aggrieved by the order of A.C.O, Jagannath S/o Bhawani and others filed an Appeal No. 1675 under Section 11 of the Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (S.O.C.)/respondent No.2 and vide order dated 09.09.1976, the S.O.C./respondent No.2 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to Consolidation Officer (C.O.)/respondent No.3.

(viii) Before the C.O./respondent no.3, a fresh compromise dated 21.08.1978 was filed in Misc. case no.1705/5859 of 1978 u/s 9A(2) of the Act. As per this compromise, the land of Khata no.371 was of late Bhawani and accordingly, the same be provided to Jagannath S/o Bhawani-1/3 share, Girdhari S/o Niranjan-1/6 share, Mohanlal S/o Niranjan-1/6 share, Rambilas S/o Late Makka-1/3 share.

(ix) It would be apt to indicate that all the parties (claimants and opposite party/Rambilas) of the compromise dated 21.08.1978 filed in the case aforesaid were identified by Sri Triveni Sahai Gupta, Advocate, who was engaged by the claimants.

(x) The C.O./ respondent No.3 vide order dated 17.11.78 rejected the compromise dated 21.08.1998 filed in Misc. Case No.1705/5859 of 1978 and directed to record the name of Rambilas in place of Makka, being his legal heir, in revenue records.

(xi) The C.O./respondent No.3, rejected the compromise after observing that it has not been established that land in issue is an ancestral land and as such if compromise is accepted, then it would amount to transfer of property, which is not permissible.

(xii) Being aggrieved by order dated 17.11.78 passed by C.O/respondent No.3 in Misc. Case No.1705/5859 of 1978, Jagannath S/o Bhawani, Girdhari and Mohanlal both sons of Niranjan filed an Appeal No.163 (Jagannath and others vs. Rambilas) before S.O.C/respondent no.2.

(xiii) Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to mention that following question was put to the counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing.

"Whether without establishing/proving the fact that the property/land is an ancestral property, the rights in land can be provided by the authorities under the Act or the cooption is permissible und