LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-95

RAJENDRA Vs. BHIKKHAN

Decided On January 11, 2012
RAJENDRA Appellant
V/S
BHIKKHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mrs. Tabassum Hashmi and Sri Mohd. Khursheed Alam for the respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha for the respondent No. 3. Learned standing counsel has been heard for the respondent No. 2. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has on erroneous assumptions of fact and law reversed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as affirmed in appeal in relation to the recording of the name of late Ganga Saran father of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and the husband of petitioner No. 5.

(2.) The background in which the controversy emerges appears to be that in relation to the shares of the holding, a compromise took place between the parties before the Consolidation Authorities and the said compromise came to be verified and accepted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 21st October, 2006. The said compromise described as has been enclosed at page 33 of the paper book of the writ petition. The Assistant Consolidation Officer however while passing the order recorded that the name of the respondent No. 1 Bhikkhan be expunged as against plot Nos. 871 and 874 and the name of Ganga Saran the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner be recorded.

(3.) The respondent No, 1 filed an appeal against the said order contending that the said compromise was not with Ganga Saran for expunging the name of the respondent No. 1 and it was only in relation to the bifurcation of shares. The Settlement Officer Consolidation proceeded to uphold the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the ground that in the event the respondent No. 1 Bhikkhan had any objection to the recording of names he ought to have filed an objection under Section 9 of the 1953 Act. Since he did not choose to file any objection, therefore, in the absence of any timely action taken, the bar of Section 11A would operate and hence the appeal was dismissed.