DHANESHWAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.

(2.) AT the time of hearing of the writ petitioner, learned counsel appearing for both parties, submitted before this Court that the parties have filed a compromise and, therefore, the writ petition may be decided in terms of compromise.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid submission, keeping in mind the decision referred above, this Court has to examine that what will be the better course for dealing with the matter which may be in accordance with the wishes of the parties and also in the ends of justice but at the same time by ruling out chances of any fraud or malpractice while getting the matter finalised on the basis of compromise from this Court. IN this respect, this Court can take note of various happenings as has taken in the past and even happening in present also that sometime either of the party, with a mala fide intention gets vakalatnama of another counsel filed through whom, compromise is filed and the matter is got decided in ignorance to one of the party concerned and thereafter as and when concerned party approaches this Court by moving application, that he has never consented to the compromise and he has not signed the compromise, then as the controversy could not be adjudicated without getting evidence of hand writing expert, without taking evidence in this respect, a peculiar situation arises. Upon the move by aggrieved party two situation arises whether this Court is to examine the factual aspects or the party be relegated to approach the civil court for getting the fraud investigated. If this situation happens then the party who is complaining about the fraud is to suffer irreparable harassment besides lot of complications, multiplicity of proceedings and wastage of time of the Court and money of the litigant. IN the cases relied by learned counsel for the parties, these aspects appear to have not been noticed. IN view of the aforesaid, to rule out any chance of malpractice, passing of final order by this Court deciding the claim of the parties on the basis of the compromise, may not be in the ends of justice. At this stage, the submission for sending the compromise which is filed by the parties to the Court below for verification as has been observed by this Court in the case of Laljee v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), also not to be accepted as that also may take quite long time besides lengthy exercise of sending of the documents to the Court below and thereafter, after recording a finding to remit all the papers to this Court and then formality of passing orders by this Court. As even after passing a formal order by this Court, directing the decision of the claim of the parties on the basis of the compromise, it is not end of the matter, as it has to be given effect by the consolidation authorities and thus the exercise of sending the papers to the authority and requiring him to send the same after verification may also not be a complete exercise.