KODAI Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and learned counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4. Mr. Mohan Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 9. Notices to opposite party No. 2 stand dispensed with. It is admitted between the parties that the property in question has been subsequently purchased by the opposite party no.4 from the opposite parties 5 to 8 and as such the said opposite parties 5 to 8 are merely proforma opposite parties with regard to present petition. The opposite parties 3 and 4 being the primary litigating opposite parties, as such notices although issued earlier to opposite parties 5 to 8 though not served are not being taken into cognizance and the matter is being finally decided with the consent of learned counsel for parties.

(2.) Petition has been filed against order dated 18th February, 2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, Lucknow whereby the appeal No.21 of 2019 (Kodai versus Shyam Charan and others) under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been transferred from the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar to the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ayodhya.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father of petitioner was recorded over the suit premises but during consolidation proceedings, his right and title over the suit premises ended on the basis of a fraudulent compromise without any notice or information to the father of petitioner. The aforesaid case under section 9-A of the Act of 1953 was decided in terms of the said fraudulent compromise by means of the order dated 25th July, 1991. It is submitted that when the father of petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fraudulent compromise, he filed a delayed appeal on 25th October, 2007. It is submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, it was revealed that the suit premises had been purchased by the opposite party No.4 by means of a registered sale deed. It is submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the opposite party No.3 who was the manager of the institution (arrayed as opposite party No.4 in the present writ petition) filed an application for transfer of the appeal under Rule 65 of the U.P. Consolation of Holdings Rules, which has been allowed by means of the impugned order.