1

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 36 of 2023

Petitioner :- Badri Prasad

Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chaudhary Shatrughan,Devesh Kumar

Verma

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri

Shatrughan Chaudhary learned Advocate assisted by Sri Devesh Kumar

Verma, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4-Raja Ram as also

Dr. Krishna Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the State.

By means of the present petition, a challenge has been made to the order

dated 03.01.2023 passed by the revisional authority/opposite party no.1-

Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Sultanpur, whereby the opposite

party no. 1 interfered in the order of appellate authority dated 04.12.2022,

whereby the appellate authority after considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, remanded back the matter to the Consolidation

Officer for adjudicating the case on merits after providing opportunity of

hearing to the parties to the litigation.

It would be apt to mention that the opposite party nos. 4 to 8 in the instant

petition were revisionists and are relatives and the petitioner was opposite

party in the revision in which the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 was

passed and taking note of the same and in view of the order proposed to be

passed issuance of notice to opposite parties no. 5 to 8 is dispensed with.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being

decided finally at the admission stage.

Assailing the impugned order dated 03.01.2023, learned Counsel for the

petitioner stated that an Appeal No. 420/2018540468000360 was filed

alongwith an application for condonation of delay challenging the order

2

dated 13.11.1995 passed in Case No. 1176 (Raja Ram Versus Sita Ram and

Others), on the main ground that order dated 13.11.1995 passed on the basis

of compromise entered between the parties is unsustainable in the eyes of

law as the said compromise was not verified or signed by the Consolidation

Officer. Clarifying the same, it is stated that Sita Ram, the father of the

petitioner had filed the appeal.

He further stated that upon due consideration of the facts as also after taking

note of the documents on record, the appellate authority recorded the

specific findings while allowing the appeal which is to the effect that

Consolidation Officer has not verified the compromise and after recording

this findings, the opposite party no. 2 allowed the appeal and remanded the

matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter a fresh. The

relevant observations of the Appellate Authority in order dated 04.12.2022

are as under:-

"lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 13-11-1995 dk tks vkns'k

ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mldh udy izfroknh }kjk izLrqr dh

x;h gSA ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd p0v0 }kjk

lqygukek rLnhd ugha fd;k x;k tks lqygukek dh udy

nh x;h gS ml ij dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gSA lqygukek dh

vafre ykbu esa fy[kk x;k gS fd p0v0 izFke vesBh esa py

jgk okn lhrkjke cuke ljdkj esa p0v0 dh lsok esa mfpr

dk;Zokgh gsrq iszf"kr] ;g lqygukek fdl frfFk dks layXu

i=koyh gqvk ;g Hkh Li"V ugha gSA lqygukek fu;ekuqlkj

gqvk gh ughaA vr,o mlds vk/kkj ij ikfjr vkns'k dk;e

ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA Åij ds foospu ls Li"V gS fd

QthZ lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr gS ftlds fo:)

yxHkx 1 o"kZ foyEc ls vihy izLrqr gSA vihydrkZ }kjk

foyEc dk tks dkj.k fn;k x;k gS og ;FkkZFkijd gS D;ksafd

lqygukek fu;ekuqlkj gqvk gh ughaA vr,o tkudkjh dk u

gksuk LokHkkfod gSA izfroknh }kjk dksbZ ,slk rF; ugha izLrqr

fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gks lds ds vkyksP; vkns'k

dh tkudkjh vihydrkZ dks FkhA ,slh n'kk esa lkjoku U;k;

dks vxzlkfjr djus gsrq vkj0Mh0 1986 ist 417 ij iznRr

O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj nQk 5 fe;kn dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr

3

gSA pwafd izfroknh dk dFku gS fd fookfnr vkjkth la;qDr

vk; ls cuk;h x;h gS blfy;s lg[kkrsnkjh ds nkok dks

xq.k&nks"k ij ijh{k.k gsrq i