A compromise regarding property transfer is invalid if procured through fraud and lacks necessary documentation and registration.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. The dispute relates to eleven plots comprising of Gata No. 64, situate in Village Rajapur Virpur, District Shrawasti which originally belonged to Shri Ori son of Baccha. On his death, the said property devolved on his four sons namely Chunni, Asha Ram, Putti Ram and Shree Ram. Insofar as the instant petition is concerned, the dispute is confined to 1/4 share in Gata No. 64 which devolved on Chunni son of Ori.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Chunni was perpetually sick, hence, he required money for his treatment. Accordingly, the petitioner had lend Rs.70,000/- to Chunni and his son Vikram. It is also the case that Chunni had agreed to sell the property i.e. his 1/4 share in Gata No. 64 to the petitioner in lieu of Rs.70,000/- advanced to him. Since, Chunni died and he was survived only by his son Vikram, hence, Vikram had also agreed to transfer the property to the petitioner, however, the same could not be done and in the meantime the village in question came under consolidation operations.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Act of 1953’) wherein it was stated that since Chunni had taken Rs.70,000/- for his treatment and had agreed to transfer his share which was also agreed by his son namely Vikram, hence, the petitioner, who had also received possession, hence, his name be incorporated in the records insofar as the 1/4 share in Gata No. 64 is concerned.

4. The said objections is said to have been rejected by the Consolidation Officer by means of an order dated 18.03.1980.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby the said facts were allegedly admitted by Vikram, who thereafter entered in a compromise before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the appeal came to be decided in terms of a compromise on 04.02.1982.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said compromise was never challenged by Vikram in his lifetime and almost after thirty years, the private-respondent No. 2, namely, Barsati claiming himself to be the son of Vikram filed an application for recall of the order dated 04.02.1982 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It was stated by him that he gained the knowledge of the order dated 04.02.1982 when the petitioner had moved an application under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short ‘the Rules of 1954’) seeking incorporation of his name on the basis of the order dated 04.02.1982, in the year 2012.

7. The said application for recall was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 18.04.2013. The private-respondent No. 2 filed a revision assailing the order dated 18.04.2013 as well as the order dated 04.02.1982 passed in Appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1953. In this manner, two revisions bearing No. 201 and 202 respectively were heard and decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of its judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 allowing the revision and it set aside the order of compromise dated 04.02.1982 as well as the order dated 18.04.2013 whereby the recall application of the private-respondent No. 2 was rejected.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, instituted the instant petition. This petition in the first instance came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 12.09.2016. The petitioner assailed the said order of this Court by filing a SLP (C) No. 31464 of 2016 and the Apex Court while granting leave in Civil Appeal No. 5536 of 2024 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and remitted the matter to be decided afresh by the High Court after taking note of respective contentions of the parties and by a reasoned and speaking order. The relevant part of the o