Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Ram Chandra And Another - Petitioners
Versus
Joint Director Consolidation And Others – Respondents
WRIT - B No. - 34021 of 1993
Decided On : 28-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: W.H. Khan, Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan
For the Respondent: B.K. Srivastava, Jamal Ali, Kirty Kumar Nirkhi, Pankaj Srivastava, S.C.

Compromise reached in consolidation matters prevails unless compelling evidence of illegality or misjudgment is presented; delayed appeals undermine procedural integrity.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9-A(2) and 11(1) - Dispute concerning the ownership of plots leading to appeals instituted with a significant delay - The Assistant Consolidation Officer initially ruled in favor of joint ownership based on compromise, which was later challenged by grossly delayed appeals leading to a revisit of matters by the Joint Director of Consolidation which created prejudicial situations for the petitioners. (Paras 3-13)

(B) Limitation - The appeals filed after a nine-year delay were dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Assistant Settlement Officer but were allowed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, warranting judicial scrutiny to assess the legitimacy of the remand order. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners dispute ownership of multiple khatas, previously settled through compromise, later challenged by some parties 9 years later, which resulted in the appeals and subsequent revisions.

Findings of Court:
The appeals initiated were dismissed for the inordinate delay, and the remand was later deemed arbitrary, confirming that the original orders from 1968 held proper administrative weight.

Issues: Whether the failed appeals filed years after the fact infringe on the principles of limitation and whether the revisions warranted the reopening of settled matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the original ruling of the Assistant Consolidation Officer emphasizing the significance of compromise and the precedent of established orders, noting the absence of valid reasons for revising the settled disputes unduly.

Result: Writ petition allowed; prior orders affirmed and the impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. dispute involves ancestral property entries. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioners assert joint ownership rights. (Para 6)
3. respondents contest compromise validity. (Para 7)
4. court reviews decisions made by consolidation officers. (Para 8 , 9)
5. order based on compromise is upheld. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. writ petition is allowed; orders set aside. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1.Heard Mr. Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kirty Kumar Nirkhi and Mr. Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2.The brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of Khata Nos. 107, 382, 417, 419, 421. In the basic year of the Consolidation operation khata No.107 was recorded in the name of Bhabuti Lal and Misrilal, sons of Ram Sahai, Babu Ram, Chhadamilal and Chhotelal, sons of Ram Dayal and Jalim son of Bhuppi, khata No.382 was recorded in the name of Baburam, Chhadami Lal and Chhote Lal sons of Ram Dayal, Khata No.417 was recorded in the name of Bhabutilal and Misri Lal sons of Ram Sahai, Khata No.419 was recorded in the name of Bhabuti Lal, Misri Lal sons of Ram Sahai and Baburam, Chhadamilal and Chhotelal sons of Ram Dayal and Khata No.421 was recorded in the name of Bhabuti Lal and Misri Lal sons of Ram Sahai and Babu Ram and Chhadami son of Ram Dayal. The family pedigree which is mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the writ petition will be also relevant for perusal, which is as under:

3. Against the basic year entry of the plots of the aforementioned khatas objections under Section-9-A (2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act) were filed, which were registered as Case Nos. 114, 457, 9989, 502, 507. The parties to the dispute have entered into compromise accordingly, Consolidation Officer has passed the order for recording the name of all the family branches. In respect to khata No.107, Consolidation Officer passed the order on 26.10.1968 in Case No.114. In respect to khata No.382 Consolidation Officer passed the order on 12.10.1968 in case No.457. In respect to khata No.417, Consolidation Officer passed the order on 13.10.1968 in case No.9989. The Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 18.10.1968 in respect to khata No. 419 in case No. 502 and in respect to khata no.421 order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 18.10.1968 in case No.507. Sumer (father of petitioner No.2) had executed a sale deed on 29.04.1977 in favour of petitioner No.1 (son in- law of Sumer). Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer as mentioned above, five appeals under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act were filed by respondent No.2 Misri and father of respondent No.3 Chhadami Lal along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 9 years which were registered as Appeal Nos. 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112 under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned appeals were consolidated and heard together by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In appeals, objections were filed that appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as there is inordinate delay of 9 years in filing the appeals and village is at a verge of denotification as such the appeals should be dismissed. Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 17.09.1979 has dismissed the aforementioned appeals. Against order order 17.09.1979 revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act were filed by contesting respondents before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which were registered as revision Nos.8/1217, 9/1218, 10/1219, 11/1220, 12/1221. The aforementioned revisions were consolidated and heard together. The Joint Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.03.1981 allowed the revision setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer as well as Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter before consolidation Officer to decide the ma