PUTAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shikhar Anand for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.1.2014 by which application of the petitioners dated 8.6.2009, to decide the revision afresh in compliance of the order of this Court dated 28.8.1968, has been rejected.

(2.) THERE was a dispute luring consolidation between four brothers namely Badri, Chhote Lal, Sri Krishna on the one side and Ram Sahare on the other side. Ultimately, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that khata in dispute was self -acquired property of Ram Sahare. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was challenged by Badri, Chhote Lal and Sri Krishna before this Court in Writ Petition No. 595 of 1966 in which this Court by order dated 28.6.1968 found that four brothers have entered into the compromise dated 8.10.1947 and in pursuance of the compromise their conduct regarding the ownership over the property in dispute is also relevant accordingly the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh in accordance. It has been observed that it will be open for the parties to file a compromise of the type that has been filed in the case before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, if they are so minded and it will be his duty in deciding the revision application before him to take into consideration such a compromise, if any. After the order dated 28.8.1968, neither the parties has filed the compromise before the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor has brought to his notice of the order of the High Court dated 28.8.1968. It is only the petitioners filed an application on 8.6.2009 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and prayed for deciding the revision afresh in compliance of the remand order dated 28.8.1968. The application dated 8.6.2009 was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the impugned order dated 13.1.2014 found that the compromise was filed before the High Court on 9.1.1968 and which was a conditional compromise under which Rs. 1,200/ - was required to be paid to Ram Sahare. There is nothing on record that condition under the compromise has been fulfilled by the other three brothers of Ram Sahare. He further held that the compromise was entered into three brothers of Ram Sahare and now after their death the compromise cannot be acted upon. Rs. 1,200/ - which was the condition to be paid to Ram Sahare in the compromise was the value of the land which was given in pursuance of the compromise to other three brothers at that time. As such now the payment of Rs. 1,200/ -, after such a long time, has become meaningless, in such circumstances, no fresh order can be passed on the basis of compromise dated 9.1.1968. On this finding the application dated 8.6.2009 filed by the petitioners has been rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. A perusal of the order of this Court dated 28.8.1968 shows that this Court found that there was a compromise between four brothers on 8.10.1947 which was ignored by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision as such the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. But none of the parties take any care to appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in pursuance of the remand order of this Court dated 28.8.1968 within a reasonable time. It is only on 8.6.2009, the petitioners filed the application for fresh decision of the revision in pursuance of the order dated 28.8.1968. In the meantime the matter remained in exclusive possession of the heirs of Ram Sahare and after such a long time no direction can be issued to implement the order dated 28.8.1968. So far as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, is concerned, it is relied upon the compromise dated 9.1.1968 filed in the High Court but nothing has been said in this respect in the writ petition. As such the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed.