JAGDISH Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kuldeep Saxena holding brief of Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, who has filed caveat on behalf of Jai Lal, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of Khata No. 416, which in the basic year record were recorded in the name of Shiv Lal, Vikram and Moti. The objection under section 9A(2) was filed by the petitioners. This objection was decided on the basis of a compromise vide order dated 20.10.1994, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be recorded over the land of Khata No. 416. Two appeals, bearing Appeal Nos. 243 of 2011 and 244 of 2011, were filed by the contesting respondents against the compromise order dated 20.10.1994. These appeals were filed almost 11 years after the compromise order was passed.

(2.) THE contesting respondents objected alleging that notification under section 52(1) of the Act had been published and that the appellants were not party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and, therefore, were not entitled to maintain the appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Badaun by his order dated 19.3.2012, condoned the delay in filing the appeals subject to payment of Rs. 300/ - as cost. He has also held that the appeals were maintainable.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that the contesting respondents, who had filed the appeal, were not parties in the objection, which was decided on the basis of a compromise. Relying upon section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it has been submitted that they were not competent to maintain the appeal because the appeal can file only by a party to the proceedings. It has further been held that the various judgments cited before the Courts below in support of this contention had been wrongly ignored. It has further been submitted that the orders impugned are contrary to the express provisions of law contained in section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.