RAM KRIPAL DUBEY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition was initially filed by Ram Kripal Dubey s/o Ram Charan, against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh and the respondent nos.2 and 3- Jagat Pal s/o Ram Prasad and Sheetala Prasad s/o Basudev were arrayed as the contesting respondents respectively. Later on during pendency of the writ petition, both the petitioner and the respondents have been substituted by their legal heirs. An interim order was granted by this Court on 06.02.2004 for maintaining status quo on the land in dispute in terms of possession and also for maintaining of records. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution thrice but was restored each time and the interim order in favour of the petitioner lapsed a long time ago, but a limited order restraining the parties from cutting trees on the land in dispute was operating thereafter.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, that he had been in possession of Khata no.31 Gata No.14, Area 0.559 ha situated in village Siyarabasi, Patti, Pratapgarh, since the time of his ancestors and the grove has trees planted by his ancestors. The opposite parties filed objections under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Consolidation Officer after perusal of records and on the spot inspection had passed an order on 26.02.1973 rejecting the objections of opposite party nos.2 and 3. The Appeal filed by the opposite parties was also rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on 24.12.1974. Two Revisions were filed by the respondents, namely, Revision no.1 (Jagat Pal vs. Ram Garib) and Revision no.2 (Sheetla Prasad vs. Ram Kripal). Both the Revisions were clubbed together and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, in an illegal and arbitrary manner ignoring findings of fact recorded by the two learned courts below. The petitioner claims right over the land in dispute on the basis of a compromise between Ram Garib, the uncle of the petitioner (now dead), and seven others executed on 20.06.1968, with Shiv Murat and others, the recorded tenure holders, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the land in question including grove land belonged to the ancestors of the petitioners for the past 150 years. This compromise was produced in the court of Judicial Officer Pratapgarh in Case No.606/74/438/77/11/4 of 1970. A true copy of the compromise has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The second ground for claiming right over the land in question is copies of Khatauni maintained on the basis of First and Second Settlements i.e. of the year 1862 and 1892, filed as Annexure-6 and 7 to the writ petition. No other ground has been taken in the writ petition.

(3.) Initially, an application for dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of non-impleadment of necessary parties was filed by Sri Prem Narain Mishra, the son of opposite party no.3-Sheetla Prasad, on the ground that the writ petition was filed against dead persons as it is evident from a perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Authority that the revisionist had died and had been substituted by his heirs in the course of Revision. However, this application remained pending and in the meantime substitution application was filed by Ram Kripal Dubey which was allowed on 13.02.2006. An application for recall of order dated 13.02.2006 was filed by Prem Narain Mishra which has also been rejected by detailed order on 04.04.2012 with a direction to the respondent Prem Narain Mishra to file a counter affidavit to the writ petition. An application for impleadment was also filed by twelve persons which stated that these twelve persons were parties to the Revision and co-sharers to the land in dispute but had not been made the petitioners by Ram Kripal Dubey, as at the time of filing of the writ petition no one was available to sign to the power. This application has also been allowed on 12.4.2016 and these twelve persons were directed to be impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 15 in the memo of the writ petition.