Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Jumayee - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 216 of 1994
Decided On : 15-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: U.C. Pandey and Umesh Chandra Pandey.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., J.P. Tripathi and Satish Kr. Tripathi.

The court reaffirmed that procedural compliance under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is mandatory, and non-adherence, especially concerning the recording of compromises, nullifies the authority's jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9-A(2), 11(1), 48, and 52; U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 25-A - Petition to recall and restore earlier application dismissed - Delay condoned based on the petitioner’s explanation of discovery of dismissal - Proper procedure under Rule 25-A not followed by Assistant Consolidation Officer (A.C.O.) when terms of compromise were recorded, leading to revocation of the A.C.O.'s order and case remanded for fresh determination. (Paras 9 to 10)

(B) Jurisdiction - Mandatory procedures for consolidation cases - Presence of Consolidation Committee members is mandatory during recording of compromise to prevent fraud - Non-compliance renders the A.C.O.'s order illegal. (Paras 44 to 46)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of a writ petition contending improper application of procedural rules regarding compromise in land consolidation matters. The A.C.O. had issued an order without verifying compromise procedure, leading to further appeals and delays in proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court held the A.C.O.'s order invalid due to lack of proper adherence to required procedures for compromises and remanded the case.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the adherence to statutory procedures for recording compromises and the justification for the delay in appealing against previous decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-compliance with Rule 25-A regarding the recording of compromises in the presence of Committee members invalidates orders made by the A.C.O., emphasizing that procedural adherence is crucial for lawful jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petition dismissed, with case remanded for fresh determination.

Table of Content
1. writ petition restoration and delay condonation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background on initial consolidation proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. deliberation on rule 25-a compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 18)
4. court's reasoning on mandatory provisions of rule 25-a. (Para 19 , 21)
5. this group touches on the legal discussions of whether rule 25-a was violated. (Para 20)
6. this group discusses the mandatory nature of complying with established procedural rules. (Para 25)
7. final dismissal of writ petition. (Para 27 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Taking note of the facts stated in the affidavit(s) filed in support of application(s) (C.M.Application Nos. 56980 of 2016 and 56981 of 2016), the same are allowed. The delay in filing the application for recall is hereby condoned. The order dated 3.11.2015 dismissing the writ petition in default is hereby recalled and the petition is restored to its original number.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.1.1994 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (in short ''D.D.C.'').

3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that before the Assistant Consolidation Officer (in short ''A.C.O.''), in Case No. 3137 instituted under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ''Act of 1953''), a compromise was filed on 13.9.1967 and based upon the compromise the A.C.O. passed the order on the same day i.e. on 13.9.1967 which reads as under :

''The case is disposed of in terms of compromise. The compromise deed will form part of the order.''

4. The order dated 13.9.1967 was challenged by means of the Appeal No. 350/487/0287 instituted under Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1953 by the respondent No. 2-Smt. Sakunta widow of Ali Husain.

5. The appellate authority namely Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short ''S.O.C.'') vide order dated 22.6.1987 dismissed the appeal after considering the provisions as envisaged under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 in filing the appeal.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.1987, respondent No. 2-Smt. Sakunta filed the Revision No. 1761/1284/95 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953.

7. The revisional authority namely respondent No. 1/D.D.C. after considering the various pronouncements of this Court held that after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953, the appeal or revision, as the case may be, would be maintainable.

8. On the issue of explanation of delay, respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13.1.1994, after taking note of the facts of the case including the plea raised by the respondent No. 2 before the appellate authority that the compromise is not genuine and the law on the issue of dealing with the application for condonation as also the undisputed averments related to knowledge of the order dated 13.9.1967 made by the respondent No. 2 in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 13.9.1967, interfered in the order dated 22.6.1987 and remanded the matter back to the S.O.C. with direction to decide the case afresh. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.1.1994 reads as under :

9. From a conjoint reading of order dated 13.9.1967 and the compormise dated 13.9.1967, which form part of order dated 13.9.1967, it is apparent that A.C.O. while deciding the case in terms of compromise has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 (in short ''Rules of 1954'').

10. It would be apt to indicate, at this sage, that in the case of Hori Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , Allahabad and others; 1981 SCC OnLine All 851 : 1982 RD 78, this Court held that Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1954 are intra vires and valid and mandatory and also held that procedure prescribed under Rule 25-A is to be followed by A.C.O. while exercising the powe