Ram Prakash vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ddc ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6555 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Prakash vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ddc ... on 27 March, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17471
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 570 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Prakash
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ddc Faizabad And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Haridaya Narain Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghulam Mohammad Kamil,Moti Chand Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Haridaya Narain Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Moti Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri G. M. Kamil, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the private respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.08.2012 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad rejected the application for recall preferred by the petitioner which was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay, as a consequence, initial order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 03.02.1993 whereby the revision was decided on the basis of a compromise has been affirmed.

3. Shri Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to old Gata No.102-M having an area of one bigha which was part of Khata No.41 which was recorded in the name of Ram Het, the father of the petitioner and the private respondents no.2 and 3.

4. As per the case of the petitioner, the property in question was recorded in the name of Ram Het, son of Kanhai. Upon the death of Ram Het, the property in question came to be mutated in the names of his three sons i.e. the petitioner and the private respondents no.2 and 3. Each had 1/3rd share therein and they continued to remain in possession of their equal 1/3rd share.

5. Upon commencement of consolidation operation the share of the petitioner and his two brothers was 1/3rd. However, it is alleged that the private respondent no.2, namely, Ram Kumar who is alleged to be a shrewd person and was working in the election office at Faizabad, he by resorting to fraud got a compromise filed, as a consequence, the equal shares of the three brothers were tampered and as per the alleged compromise Ram Kumar would have 2/3rd share whereas the petitioner and his other brother Ram Sumer together would have 1/3rd i.e. 1/6th each.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the alleged compromise was never signed by the petitioner nor it was within his knowledge and as such it being an outcome of fraud could not be made binding on the petitioner. It was also stated that the said compromise was said to have been filed before the revisional court while the petitioner or the private respondent no.3 did not file any revision at all and by misusing the name of the petitioner.

7. It was alleged that the revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is also bad in law as without there being any order of adjudication by an authority subordinate to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which a revision could not have been filed. In the instant case there was no order by any subordinate authority by which any person could be aggrieved. Hence, by filing a revision straightway before the revisional court itself indicates that there was complete forgery committed by the private respondent no.2, hence the order dated 03.02.1993 by which the revision is said to have been decided in terms of a compromise is bad in the eyes of law.

8. The petitioner on becoming aware of the same moved an application for recall and the Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the application for recall vide order dated 31.08.2012 ignored material and important aspects of the matter. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, both the orders dated 31.08.2012 as well as the order dated 03.02.1993 deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be granted his 1/3rd share which he had succeeded from his father in respect of the property in question i.e. old Plot No.102-M which after consolidation was given Plot No.201, situate in village Kutaru, Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the submission has relied upon Sita Ram and others Vs. DDC Pratapgarh and others, 2010 (109) RD page 536, A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC page 221, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS and others, (1994) 1 SCC page 1 and Laxmi Kant Chaubey Vs. DDC and others, 2011 (114) RD page 46.

10. Shri G. M. Kamil, learned counsel appearing for the heirs of respondent no.3 as primarily adopted submission of the counsel for the petitioner.

11. Refuting the submission of Shri Tiwari, Moti Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has urged that the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts.

12. It is further urged that the petitioner has not assailed the earlier order dated 15.10.1988 in terms whereof the parties had entered in a compromise as a result the petitioner and the private respondent no.3 got 1/6th share whereas the private respondent no.2 got 2/3rd share.

13. It is further submitted that a time barred application for recall was moved which did not find favour with the Consolidation Officer against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who also dismissed the appeal being time barred whereafter the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Faizabad to decide the appeal on merit.

14. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation thereafter taking evidence of the witnesses who were the members of the Consolidation Committee upheld the compromise of the order of 1981 vide its judgment dated 15.10.1988. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner preferred a revision wherein he did not assail the order relating to the grant of share in the property in question rather he had raised certain other ancillary issues relating to the valuation of the chak and its location.

15. Since the petitioner and the private respondents no.2 and 3 were real brothers, they entered in a compromise on 27.09.1993 and on the basis thereof the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the revision on the basis of the said compromise on 03.02.1993. The petitioner never assailed the order dated 03.02.1993 at the relevant time and after more than 15 years moved an application for recall which has been rejected by the revisional court noticing that neither any cogent explanation has been given for seeking condonation of delay of 15 years even otherwise the compromise was verified by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who had noticed the same in his order dated 03.02.1993 and as such in absence of any cogent reasons or without making out a case for condonation of delay the petitioner is attempting to attack the order dated 03.02.1993 which was based on compromise and for the aforesaid reasons the petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from compromise merely on averments which are self serving to the petitioner, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. The Court had heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

17. Considering the submissions made by the parties as well as material available on record, it appears that the Plot No.102-M which was part of Khata No.41 and it was originally recorded in the name of Ram Het. Ram Het was survived by his three sons, Ram Sumer (private respondent no.3, now dead and represented by his legal heirs through Shri G. M. Kamil). Ram Kumar i.e. private respondent no.2 and Ram Prakash the petitioner.

18. During consolidation a compromise was arrived at in pursuance whereof the shares of the three brothers came to be re-determined and the petitioner as well as the private respondent no.3 would have 1/6th shares whereas the private respondent no.2 would have 2/3rd share. This compromise of the year 1981 came to be challenged by filing a time barred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Faizabad and the said appeal was dismissed on 03.04.1984.

19. The record indicates that a revision was preferred by Ram Prakash and Ram Sumer before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad which was allowed on 19.03.1987. The Deputy Director of Consolidation remanded the matter before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after hearing both the parties. In pursuance of the said remand order dated 19.03.1987, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation permitted the parties to lead evidence and in furtherance thereof Ambika Prasad Pradhan and Sohan Lal who were the Members of the Consolidation Committee and witnesses to the compromise of 1981 were examined and thereafter taking note of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal on merits by means of judgment dated 15.10.1988.

20. The petitioner and Ram Sumer filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and once again before the Deputy Director of Consolidation a compromise was arrived at between the brothers and the revision came to be decided on the basis of the compromise on 03.02.1993.

21. The record indicates that at this stage the proceedings came to an end later the petitioner in the year 2007 moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 03.02.1993 by which the revision was decided in terms of the compromise.

22. The record further indicates that the petitioner had raised the plea that he was not a party to the compromise dated 03.02.1993 nor he had signed any compromise. It was also urged that the compromise did not have any date and the signatures of the petitioner was also forged. There was no verification of the compromise and for the said reason the said compromise could not be sustained and the order deserves to be recalled.

23. Considering the pleading delivered by the petitioner in the instant petition, it would reveal that the petitioner has tried to merge the ground of compromise which was allegedly raised by him relating to the compromise of the year 1981 with that of the compromise of 1993. It is with this intertwined pleading that an impression is sought to be created that the compromise of 1993 is bad in the eyes of law, by taking grounds which are referable to the compromise 1991. However, upon careful perusal of the material on record, it would reveal that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. There has been no candid disclosure of facts.

24. The record would indicate that after the compromise of 1981 was passed the petitioner had filed time barred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation . Though at the first instance, the said appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner when put with the aforesaid query stated that the petitioner did not file the said appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation nor before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, this explanation which apparently is not borne out from the record is also misconceived for the reason that in case if the petitioner had not filed the time barred appeal against the compromise of 1981 and upon the dismissal of the said appeal as time barred at least if the allegations were made against the private respondent no.2, then he would have left the matter at that stage and there was no logic for the respondent no.2 to have filed the revision by forging the signatures of the petitioner and the respondent no.3. However, the matter was remanded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for considering the appeal on merits.

26. In pursuance of the remand order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation took evidence and again decided the matter on 15.10.1988. In case if the petitioner states that he did not file the revision then in any case, the judgment dated 15.10.1988 of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had attained finality. In such a situation, the petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 15.10.1988 which has not been done and thus he cannot get the benefit of his own lapse.

27. This diabolical plea of the petitioner that he has not filed the revision and he had not filed the time barred appeal including the revision filed in the second round where the compromise of 1993 was arrived at all indicates that the petitioner is attempting to create an illusion of cause of action where it does not exist. In case if the petitioner states that he did not file the revision assailing the order of 15.10.1988 then of course the compromise of 1993 would also be doubted. The petitioner does not in clear terms states that he did not file the revision assailing the order dated 15.10.1988 which resulted in a compromise. This shows that the petitioner had been taking a wavering stand. Even while filing this petition, the petitioner has not disclosed regarding the filing of time barred appeal, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissing the appeal. Thereafter escalating the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who allowed the revision of the petitioner and the respondent no.3 by means of order dated 19.03.1987. Once the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who after taking evidence dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on merits vide judgment dated 15.10.1988. These facts have not been declared and even while filing the rejoinder the petitioner did not explain the same adequately.

28. The record further indicates that the petitioner has only challenged the order dated 31.08.2012 and 03.02.1993. As per the material available on record, the revision preferred against the order dated 15.10.1988 came to be decided by a compromise on 03.02.1993. In this compromise, the parties settled their respective shares vis-a-vis the possession held by them including their right to use the common amenity. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the order dated 03.02.1993 clearly noticed that the parties were present before him who had signed the compromise and thereafter the same came to be verified upon which the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order.

29. Merely making a statement that the petitioner had no knowledge of the said compromise does not fare well or the petitioner inasmuch as from 1993 till the year 2007 there was no reason whey the petitioner would not have known regarding the orders passed in revision on the basis of compromise especially when the parties had adjusted their physical possession on the property in question in terms of the said compromise dated 03.02.1993.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not indicate that it is only the petitioner who had raised his grievance regarding non filing of the revision or entering into a compromise whereas the other two brothers i.e. respondents no.2 and 3 never raised such objections. It will also be relevant to mention that the private respondent no.3 also had to bear the brunt; inasmuch as he alongwith the petitioner got 1/6th share each and this was never challenged by the respondent no.3. It is not stated by the private respondent no.3 that he had not filed the time barred appeal which was dismissed on 03.04.1984 and he further does not state that he had not filed a revision which was allowed on 19.03.1987. Thus, apparently the petitioner only to linger on the litigation has taken the aforesaid plea and as already noticed above had made confusing pleadings and also did not disclose about the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 1987 as well as the revision which was allowed remanding the matter back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who further decided the appeal on merits in the year 1988.

31. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner has not given cogent reason to seek condonation of delay of about 15 years coupled with the fact that all the aforesaid issued was raised by the petitioner in the year 2007 and this assumes significance for the reason that in the year 2006 the file relating to the aforesaid consolidation proceedings had been weeded out and the petitioner attempted to raise the plea of fraud to take benefit of the original records having been weeded out. Nevertheless the Deputy Director of Consolidation satisfied himself that in the record, there is a clear reference of the revision being filed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly indicates that the names of the three sons were recorded. The said compromise arrived at between the brothers on 03.02.1993 was duly verified and the same has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself in his order.

32. Apparently, the judicial proceedings have a presumption of authenticity in their favour and a person who seeks to displace the same must lead appropriate and cogent evidence. The petitioner in this case who is a resident of the same village did not give any worth reason as to why he was not aware of the entire proceedings for about 15 years. There is no challenge to the compromise of the year 1981 and an indirect challenge has been made by moving an application for recall alongwith the application for condonation of delay after 15 years from the date when the revision was decided in terms of the compromise dated 03.02.1993.

33. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court clearly finds that the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts and only to overcome the hurdle of limitation the petitioner has resorted to misconceived plea that he was not aware of the compromise of the year 1981 or of the subsequent proceedings i.e. by filing a time barred appeal or the revision which was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no.3, against which the petitioner had filed a revision. This was all done to overcome the limitation but that too in-futility. There was no explanation worth its name to displace the presumption which is attracted to judicial proceedings.

34. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner in Sita Ram (supra), A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) and Laxmi Kant Chaubey (supra) are not applicable to the instant case, as the petitioner has not come to the court with candid disclosure and for the reasons as noticed herein above, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner himself has not disclosed full facts and only after counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent, a vague attempt was made to give an explanation which was inadequate and it does not impress this Court.

35. This Court does not find that there is any error palpable in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.08.2012 as a consequence the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Costs are made easy.

Order Date :- March 27, 2025

ank