PURUSHOTTAM SARRAF Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pandey as well as Mr. Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Bhaju Ram Prasad Sharma as well as Mr. S.N. Tripathhi, learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents are real brothers. According to the petitioner, family partition amongst the brothers had taken place on 27/4/1995 by which the property in dispute was distributed between the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents, accordingly, a settlement deed was written on 27/4/1995. According to the private respondents, no such family arrangement/settlement had taken place and the alleged settlement deed dtd. 27/4/1995 is forged and fabricated document. Against the basic year entry of plot Nos. 1397, 1400, 1401 area 0.809 hectare of Khata No-78 an objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") was filed by the petitioner, claiming exclusive right over the plot in question on the basis of family settlement took place on 27/4/1995. The aforementioned title objection was decided vide order dtd. 30/5/1995, on the basis of compromise alleged to take place on 30/5/1995. One Civil Suit No. 79/1995 for permanent injunction was filed in the civil court by the petitioner in which predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents have filed their written statement. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 30/5/1995, a restoration application dtd. 17/9/1996 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 27/9/1996 set aside the order dtd. 30/5/1995 and fixed the matter for fresh decision on merit. The Consolidation Officer by subsequent order dtd. 28/7/1997 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, directing to expunge the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents from the plot in question and record the name of the petitioner exclusively. Against the order dtd. 28/7/1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents have filed time barred restoration application dtd. 9/10/2002 which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 4/2/2005, setting aside the order dtd. 28/7/1997 and restoring the proceeding under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act on its original number for fresh decision after evidence of the parties. Against the order dtd. 4/2/2005, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No. 1366, under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was allowed vide order dtd. 11/7/2005, setting aside the order dtd. 4/2/2005 and remanding the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application dtd. 9/10/2002 afresh considering the limitation question first. Against the orders dtd. 11/7/2005, time-barred revision was filed by the private respondents on 18/8/2021 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No. 436/2021. In the aforementioned revision, petitioner filed objection on 7/10/2022, stating that revision is highly time-barred, as such, the same should be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is also prayed by the petitioner in the aforementioned revision that question of maintainability and limitation question be decided first before considering the merit of the revision. It is also mentioned in the objection that one revision was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent against the same order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was dismissed on 1/10/2014, as such, the second revision filed by private respondents is not maintainable. Petitioner filed Writ-B No. 135/2023 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dtd. 16/1/2023, directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision in accordance with the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case Ram Prakash v. D.D.C., Hardoi and others. 2022(155) RD 309. In compliance of the order of this Court dtd. 16/1/2023, petitioner filed an application on 9/10/2023 before Deputy Director of Consolidation for granting 15 days time for argument in revision. The Deputy Director heard the aforementioned revision and granted benefit of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the same order, allowed the revision on merit, set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dtd. 11/7/2005 as well as the Consolidation Officer dtd. 30/5/1995, 27/9/1996, 28/7/1997,4/2/2005 and directed to record the name of the contesting respondents along with petitioner as co-tenure holder on plot Nos. 1397, 1400 and 1401 of khata No. 78. Hence, this petition on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the order dtd. 30/10/2023, passed by respondent No. 2/Addl. District Magistrate (F&R)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 17/11/2023 directed the parties to exchange their pleadings in the matter. In pursuance of the order dtd. 17/11/2023, parties have exchanged their pleadings.