SHOEB ALAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 28.5.1993 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation by which compromise order dated 17.2.1975 in case No. 1129 under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act passed by Asstt. Consolidation Officer was set aside and plot Nos. 5622 and 5393 was directed to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property while relegating the matter to the Consolidation Officer for disposal afresh.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have also been taken through the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that it was passed ex parte and the finding that the compromise was a forged one and both father of the petitioners and then Pradhan of the village made a collusive combination cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that earlier there was limitation operating in relating to right to claim property but subsequently, amendment was made by which limitation came to be obliterated. Per contra, Sri A. K. Singh learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the property in question vested in Gaon Sabha and as a matter of fact, father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred a writ petition impugning order dated 11.2.1993 which culminated in being dismissed by means of order of the court dated 17.1.2000. Special leave to appeal preferred by the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also ended up in dismissal. It has been lastly submitted by the learned counsel that writ petition is a crude attempt on the part of the petitioners to grab the Gaon Sabha property.