Sukhraj Sharma vs D.D.C. And 6 Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3969 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 39958 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Sukhraj Sharma
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. And 6 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Smt. Archana Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

It appears that on 24.10.1994 an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of  compromise said to have been entered into between Smt. Kailash Rani and Panna Lal. On the basis of this compromise Kailash Rani was entered over the land in dispute.

This order which was passed on the basis of compromise, was challenged by means of a revision filed by the petitioner on 19.10.2013. This revision was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) by the impugned order has refused to condone the delay of 19 years. He has recorded that no specific date of knowledge of the order impugned has been indicated. He has further recorded that certified copy of the order impugned in the writ petition had not been annexed thereto and therefore refused to condone the delay.

Before this Court, it has been submitted that the Will executed by Panna Lal in favour of Kailash Rani and the petitioner who are sisters were discovered while cleaning the house. It is thereafer that the revision has been preferred. On the strength of this fact, it has been submitted that the writ petition is not entertained valuable rights of the petitioner would stand extinguished.

Upon consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be wholly misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the compromise which was entered into between Kailash Rani and Panna Lal. The petitioner claims on the basis of a will of Februrary, 1994 alleged to have been executed by Panna Lal himself. Admittedly, Panna Lal was alive on the date of the compromise and therefore the will which is basis of the petitioner's claim cannot be a ground for setting aside the compromise order. The will if any would come into operation only on the death of the testator.

Under these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition which is liable to be dismissed.

It is always open to the petitioner to take resort to such legal proceedings as may be permissible under law to set up and establish her claim on the basis of will of February, 1992 which is said to have been executed in her favour by Panna Lal.

Accordingly and subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.8.2014

SKS