JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Order on Amendment Application

Amendment application filed on behalf of Respondent-3 today in Court is taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. Allowed.

4. Consequential amendment be carried out during course of the date.

Order on Writ Petition

5. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent-3.

6. This writ petition is pending before this Court since 1979. The parties to litigation belongs to one family.

7. Shiv Lal son of Kidda died leaving behind a registered Will dated 23.05.1969 and the Will is apparently not in dispute. A dispute arose between parties with regard to land and two proceedings were initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which were dropped vide orders dated 26.12.1973 and 28.12.1973 respectively apparently on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise and disputed land was released in favour of one of the party.

8. As per compromise a Haweli remained in possession of original petitioner of this writ petition and land remained in possession of original Respondent-3. Since consolidation proceedings were pending, objections were filed by both parties under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953"). Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.05.1975 accepted and relied on compromise entered between parties and which was referred in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Consolidation Officer held that agricultural land belong to deceased, Shiv Lal shall exclusively goes to original Respondent-3.

9. Original petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 23.12.1978 and land was devolved in favour of original petitioner and original Respondent-3 equally on the basis of Will. Appellate Authority held that Will was proved and compromise entered during proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. Relevant finding of Appellate Authority is mentioned hereinafter:

^^9- ----------- D;ksafd ;g tksj tcjnLrh ds vk/kkj ij djk fy;k x;k gS tSlk fd I;kjs flag us vius tokc esa Hkh dgk gS blfy;s esjh jk; esa bl izdkj ds le>kSrs dks dksbZ dkuwuh egRo nsuk vuqfpr gksxkA

----------

11- mijksDr foospuk ls ;g ckr Li"V gks tkrh gSA fd olh;r ;k f'koyky ds }kjk dh x;h tks iwjh rjg ls lkfcr dj nh x;hA bl olh;r ls nksuks i{k dks gd feyrs gS rFkk le>kSrk Hkh i{kksa ds njfe;ku fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa vnkyr esa ckgj gqvk ftlls I;kjs flag ds gdksa ij izfrdwy izHkko ugha iMrk gSA bl rkSj ij vihy dke;kc gksus ;ksX; gS og vnkyr ekrgr dk vkns'k mijksDr jí gksus ;ksX; gSA**

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Original Respondent-3 thereafter a preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 22.05.1979 and relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:

^^6 & pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dh i=koyh ds v/;;u djus ls Li"V gS fd ijxuk vf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa nks QSlys nkf[ky fd;s x;s ftlds vuqlkj dSe'kkL= gosyh ij dCtk I;kjs gS vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe ij dCtk pUnziky flag dk gS rLnhd fd;s x;s blds vfrfjDr tks le>kSrk pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj ftlds I;kjs }kjk ekU;rk u nsus dk rdZ gS og fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k }kjk iw.kZ :is.k rLnhd fd;k x;k gS pwafd ;g le>kSrk Hkh mlh frfFk dk gS ftl frfFk ls ijxukf/kdkjh ds le{k le>kSrk mHk; i{kks }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k }kjk rLnhd 'kqnk gS vr% esjs fopkj ls ;g ,d ikfjokfjd le>kSrs dh ekU;rk j[krk gSA fo}ku odhy izfri