SHIV PRAKASH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.K. Gupta for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision of the Petitioner which had been filed assailing the order dated 19.12.1983. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the sale-deed which was the basis of the compromise, as well as the effect of the order dated 19.12.1983, was a fraudulent transaction, and therefore the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error for declining to interfere with the same. The submission in short is that if the sale-deed is fraudulent so it is void and even otherwise the proceedings are vitiated as fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings.

(3.) The back ground of the case is that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claim that they had purchased the land from the father of the Petitioner late Ram Iqbal Tewari through a sale-deed in the year 1981. The consolidation proceedings intervened and according to the Respondents they got their names mutated by an order dated 19.12.1983 on the basis of a compromise/This order came to be endorsed in the relevant C.H. Form 23 in 1994 itself. The consolidation proceedings culminated with the de-notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The father of the Petitioner, Ram Iqbal Tewari died in 1998. He did not file any objection or raise any plea against the sale-deed during his life time. In the year 2008 an appeal was filed under Section 42-A of the U.P.C.H. Act by the contesting Respondents for rectification of an order that came to be passed by the Consolidation Officer on 23.4.1988. Another order was passed on an application under? Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Rules for giving affect to the rectification.