RAM ACHAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned Counsel for the applicant in the review petition at great length. This application has been filed by Petitioners for seeking review of my judgment and order dated 13.12.2010 through which I dismissed the writ petition. It is correct that in my judgment I wrongly mentioned that compromise was verified before the reader. It was not verified before the reader.

(2.) EVEN if I fully agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that compromise in fact took place still it will not make any difference.

(3.) NO . one sells his immovable property the moment he decides to sell that, particularly in villages. Searching a buyer and finalising the deal takes lot of time. Accordingly, even if it is held that on 27.3.1997 compromise did take place, still by then Ram Deen must have decided to sell the land. In such situation the compromise would be deemed to have been designed to defraud the prospective purchaser in future. Petitioners being beneficiaries of this design, are squarely liable for the same.