The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged compromises.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pandey as well as Mr. Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Bhaju Ram Prasad Sharma as well as Mr. S.N. Tripathhi, learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents are real brothers. According to the petitioner, family partition amongst the brothers had taken place on 27.4.1995 by which the property in dispute was distributed between the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents, accordingly, a settlement deed was written on 27.4.1995. According to the private respondents, no such family arrangement/settlement had taken place and the alleged settlement deed dated 27.4.1995 is forged and fabricated document. Against the basic year entry of plot nos. 1397, 1400, 1401 area 0.809 hectare of Khata No. 78 an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P.C.H. Act”) was filed by the petitioner, claiming exclusive right over the plot in question on the basis of family settlement took place on 27.4.1995. The aforementioned title objection was decided vide order dated 30.5.1995, on the basis of compromise alleged to take place on 30.5.1995. One Civil Suit No. 79/1995 for permanent injunction was filed in the civil court by the petitioner in which predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents have filed their written statement. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.5.1995, a restoration application dated 17.9.1996 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.9.1996 set aside the order dated 30.5.1995 and fixed the matter for fresh decision on merit. The Consolidation Officer by subsequent order dated 28.7.1997 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, directing to expunge the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents from the plot in question and record the name of the petitioner exclusively. Against the order dated 28.7.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents have filed time barred restoration application dated 9.10.2002 which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.2.2005, setting aside the order dated 28.7.1997 and restoring the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on its original number for fresh decision after evidence of the parties. Against the order dated 4.2.2005, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No. 1366, under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was allowed vide order dated 11.7.2005, setting aside the order dated 4.2.2005 and remanding the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application dated 9.10.2002 afresh considering the limitation question first. Against the orders dated 11.7.2005, time-barred revision was filed by the private respondents on 18.8.2021 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No. 436/2021. In the aforementioned revision, petitioner filed objection on 7.10.2022, stating that revision is highly time-barred, as such, the same should be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is also prayed by the petitioner in the aforementioned revision that question of maintainability and limitation question be decided first before considering the merit of the revision. It is also mentioned in the objection that one revision was filed by the predeces