BHAIYA RAM Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Pleadings are complete and writ petition is listed for final hearing.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, names of Dasha Ram, Ganga Deen, Sangram Singh, Jabbar Singh, Sarvjeet Singh sons of Ram Autar, Ram Prasad and Rameshwar sons of Shiv Narain, Hari Lal and Ram Suchit sons of Baiju and Jagannath son of Budh Ram were recorded in the basic year. Claim of the petitioners is that reconciliation took place between the parties and name of Bhaiya Ram son of Budh Ram and Mahadeo son of Ram Adheen were added as co-sharers and its Amaldramad was made in the Khatauni 1376 to 1378 Fasli. This Amaldramad was carried out in the year 1976 though the village was notified for consolidation and reconciliation took place on 17.12.1974. The contesting respondents preferred an Appeal No. 1525 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Mahadeo son of Ram Adheen was not impleaded in the appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, vide order dated 2.7.1977 ordered impleadment of Mahadeo. His name was not added in the alleged reconciliation document and authority was of the view that the appeal could not proceed without arraying all the necessary parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the order of impleadment passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. Reconciliation was challenged without impleading Mahadeo and appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 1.4.1978. The said order was challenged in revision by Dasha Ram and others. The Joint Director Consolidation, Allahabad directed the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to conduct an inquiry as it was alleged that so called reconciliation was a fraud. The Settlement Officer Consolidation sent a report to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 27.2.1981 expressing grave doubt about proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.12.1983 came to a conclusion that the order dated 17.12.1974 stood vitiated on account of fraud and he accepted the reference setting aside the reconciliation order dated 17.12.1974. A further direction was given that action should be taken against guilty employees of the consolidation department but did not think it proper to remand the matter before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the respective claims and shares of the family members. The petitioners claimed that rights of Mahadeo and Bhaiya Ram who were added subsequently in the reconciliation proceeding remained undecided till date on account of reason that they were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings.