Allahabad High Court
Ram Lal And 2 Others vs Additional District Collector And 10 ... on 22 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:243065
Court No. - 90
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 779 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Lal And 2 Others
Respondent :- Additional District Collector And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Vinod Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal,Rahul Agarwal,Suresh Chandra Varma
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F & R)/Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.'), Chandauli in Revision No.2016531418000029 reversing the judgment dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') in Appeal No.52/1516 arising out of order dated 22.09.1977 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'A.C.O.') on the basis of compromise, in proceeding under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act').
2. Facts culled out from the record are that property in question i.e. Khata No.271 belongs to Jokhan who was recorded Seerdar in the record of rights. During consolidation operation, predecessor-in-interest of the private contesting respondents have filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming their right and title on the basis of permissive possession which is evident from the copy of objection (Annexure No. 4). Aforesaid objection was allowed by the order dated 22.09.1977 passed by the A.C.O. (Annexure No. 2) on the basis of compromise took place between the persons who have filed objection and Jokhan (Seerdar of Khata No.271). At later stage, the petitioners have preferred separate set of objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act (Annexure No. 5) showing themselves as collateral descendants from common ancestor Bhola. Said objection was dismissed by the order dated 02.05.1992. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 22.09.1977, present petitioners have preferred appeal dated 11.12.1991 being Appeal No. 25/2182. The S.O.C., vide order dated 31.03.1994 (Annexure-7), has dismissed the said appeal on the ground of laches. Having been aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred two revisions; assailing the order dated 02.05.1992 passed in objection filed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and the order dated 31.03.1994 passed by the S.O.C. dismissing the appeal No.25/2182. The D.D.C., vide order dated 13.08.2003 (Annexure No. 12), has dismissed both the revisions. Having been aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred writ petition registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38437 of 2003. This Court, vide order dated 17.09.2010 (Annexure No. 13), has allowed the writ petition relegating the parties before the S.O.C. to decide the appeal afresh on merits. After remand, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the S.O.C. has allowed the appeal, vide order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure No. 17), and remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.'), Chandauli, quashing the order dated 22.09.1977, to decide the objection filed by the contesting respondents afresh. While remanding the matter, the S.O.C. has pointed out irregularities in the order dated 22.09.1977 decided on the basis of the compromise. On revision being filed on behalf of the contesting respondents against the order dated 16.09.2016, the D.D.C. has allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 16.09.2016 by its order dated 20.01.2022, which is under challenge before this Court.
3. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that Jokhan was the recorded as Sirdar over property in question i.e. Khata No. 217. Initially, predecessors in the interest of contesting respondents have filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming their right and title over Khata No. 217 on the basis of possession which was allowed considering the compromise took place between the parties. At later stage, the petitioners have filed their objection claiming their right being collateral descendants from Bhola. Upto the stage of D.D.C., the present petitioners have lost their litigation. In the meantime, Jokhan had died on 12.01.1999 during pendency of the revision. Two sets of substitution applications were filed wherein contesting respondents have claimed their right on the basis of will deed dated 16.10.1995, however, the present petitioners have claimed their right on the basis of will deed dated 11.01.1999, respectively. The D.D.C. has allowed both the parties to be substituted vide order dated 13.08.2003. Ultimately, the petitioners came up before this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38437 of 2003 (Ramlal & Others vs. State of U.P. & others). Order dated 17.09.2010 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition evince that points relating to the legality and validity of the compromise order dated 22.09.1977 on premise of violating of provisions as enunciated under Rule 25-A of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as the right, title and interest of the present petitioners being collateral descendants have been considered by this Court.
4. After death of Jokhan, during pendency of revision, the claim of both the parties; on the basis of will deed dated 16.10.1995 allegedly in favour of respondents and will deed dated 11.11.1999 allegedly in favour of petitioners have been considered by this Court. As mentioned above, both parties were substituted to represent the estate of deceased Jokhan. This Court has shown it's concern as well with respect to the Sirdari rights of Jokhan over Khata No. 271. The relevant observation as made at internal page No. 8 of judgment (page No. 77 of the paper book) is that "it is evident that the claim of contesting respondents on the basis of will before consolidation authorities in respect of Khata No. 271 of which Jokhan was only Sirdar could not be given by means of compromise". Considering all the points as raised before this Court, order dated 17.09.2010 has been passed relegating the parties before the S.O.C. to consider the matter on merits rather to negate the same on the point of laches. Learned S.O.C., in pursuance of order passed by this Court, has discussed the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the order dated 22.09.1977 passed by A.C.O. is not in consonance with the provisions as enunciated under Rule 25A of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity, 'U.P.C.H. Rules'), thus, quashed the order dated 22.09.1977 passed by A.C.O. and relegated the parties before C.O., Chandauli to get the matter decided de novo.
5. While examining the order passed by the S.O.C. dated 16.09.2016, learned D.D.C. has dwelled on merits of right and title of the parties instead constraining himself only upto the genuineness of order dated 22.09.1977 passed on the basis of compromise. Learned D.D.C. has also relied upon the judgment passed in suit under Section 176 of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and came to the conclusion that once the partition took place in the family and land in question comes into the share of Jokhan, the petitioners have no right to agitate the property dispute again. It is apposite to mention that plea qua decision on partition suit has already been considered by this Court in its order dated 17.09.2010, however, no specific finding has been accorded in this regard, considering proper opportunity of hearing to the parties before the consolidation courts. This Court has shown his concern as well qua genuineness of the compromise in terms of the provisions as enunciated under Rule 25A of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as right of recorded tenure holder Jokhan to enter into compromise.
6. In my considered opinion, the D.D.C. has exceeded its jurisdiction in dwelling upon the title of the parties rather to consider the revision in it's limited scope qua legality and validity of the compromise order dated 22.09.1977 under the provision of Rule 25A of U.P.C.H. Rules as has been discussed by the S.O.C. pointing out the violation of procedure as required under Rule 25A of U.P.C.H. Rules, which rendered the compromise took place between the parties illegal. The D.D.C., in its order under challenge, has accepted the procedural fault committed in the compromise took place between the parties, however, he has illegally averted the same without properly considering its implications under the law and made a sweeping remark that compromise cannot be ignored merely on technical grounds. It is apposite to mention that cases decided on the basis of the compromise are legal and enforceable as good as cases decided on merits after contest between the parties. Therefore, persisting compromise decree, might be illegal, will be enforceable in the eye of law and the person, who is claiming his right and title over the property in question through the compromise order cannot be precluded under the law. On this premises, judgment in case questionable under law, due to procedural fault, is liable to be rejected/quashed and right, title and interest of the parties over the property in question is liable to be considered on its own merits. The S.O.C. has not committed any illegality in remitting the matter before its subordinate officer, however, the D.D.C. has exceeded its jurisdiction to quash the order of S.O.C. despite making an observation qua irregularity committed in the compromise order dated 22.09.1977 in question. At this juncture, it would not be befitting for this Court to delve in deep to find out the legality of the right and title of the parties which has not properly been considered by any of the consolidation courts. Even proper opportunity to contest before the initial stage of litigation had not been accorded to the present petitioners. As to whether petitioners are legally entitled being collateral descendant is a matter of examination which could properly be considered by the consolidation courts in the light of the judgment passed in partition suit, as relied upon by the D.D.C., and Sirdari rights of Jokhan, who had entered into the compromise. At the risk of repetition, I would like to point out the observation made by this Court in its previous order dated 17.09.2010 wherein this Court has shown its concern to the transferable right of Jokhan being a Sirdar.
7. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that the learned D.D.C. has exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the order passed by the S.O.C.. He has decided the revision in zeal and tried to culminate the title dispute in favour of the respondents whereas the S.O.C. has simply pointed out procedural irregularity in compromise while referring the matter before the subordinate court. The order passed by D.D.C. is illegal, unwarranted under law and suffers with infirmity which requires to be quashed.
8. Resultantly, instant petition is allowed. Order under challenge dated 20.01.2022 passed by D.D.C. is quashed and, consequently, the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the C.O., Chandauli in pursuance of the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the S.O.C.
9. Having considered an old litigation, it would be befitting to issue a direction to the court concerned to decide the objection expeditiously as early as possible, preferably, within a period of 12 months from the date of appearance of the parties.Thus, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned along with certified copy of this order and file their respective claims, if any, along with supported documents on or before 23.01.2024.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023
vinay
