SUKHDIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUKHDIN has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India claiming 1/3rd share in certain land situate in the district of Rae Bareli. The petition arises out of consoli dation proceedings. In the basic year pe titioner's name alone was recorded against this land. Admittedly the petitioner Sukhdin and Ram Kumar (opposite party No. 3), Ram Swaroop (opposite party No. 4), Ram Shankar (opposite party No. 5), Ram Nath, (opposite party No. 6), Ram Ratan (opposite party No. 7) and Smt. Sundara (opposite party No. 8) belong to the same family. At the time of fleld-to-field partal opposite parties 3 to 7 were reported to be co-tenants of the disputed khata. The mistake was accordingly en tered in C. H. Form 5 issued on 29-5-66. There was a compromise (Annexure A to the counter- affidavit) before the Assist ant Consolidation Officer to which the petitioner Sukhdin and opposite parties 3 to 8 were signatories. By this compromise it was agreed that Sukhdin shall have 1/3rd share, opposite parties 3 to 5 each 1/8 share and opposite parties 6 to 8 each 1/6 share in the disputed khata. The As sistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on the basis of Annexure A to the counter-affidavit on 13-6-66 and directed that names of opposite parties 3 to 8 along with the petitioner may be record ed in the papers according to the share agreed between the parties in the com promise. The petitioner challenged this order of the Assistant Consolidation Offi cer in appeal before the Settlement Offi cer (Consolidation). Before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) there was another compromise, copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 2 which was signed by opposite party No. 7 and the counsel for opposite party No. 8 and was not signed by or on behalf of oppo site parties 3 to 5. Under this compro mise it w, as agreed that the petitioner Sukhdin shall have 8/18 share, opposite parties 3 to 5 shall have 1/54 share each, opposite parties 6 to 8 shall have each 4/18 share .and opposite party No. 7 shall have 1/18 share in the disputed khata. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and decided the appeal in terms of this second compromise declaring that the petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 8 shall have shares in the disputed khata according to this compromise, Opposite party No. 3 Ram Kumar challenged this order of the Settlement Officer (Consoli dation) in revision filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground amongst others, that the decision of the Settlement Officer on the basis of the compromise was not binding upon him as opposite parties 3 to 5 had not joined the compromise before the Settlement Officer. This plea prevailed, with the Deputy Di rector of Consolidation who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consoli dation) and restored the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer by an order dated 9-8-68 of which Annexure 4 is a copy. Sukhdin assails the validity of this order of the Deputy Director of Con solidation on a variety of grounds main taining that the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) was right in proceeding on the basis of the compromise which was reached before him and that the shares of the petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 8 should have been declared in accord ance with that compromise and the De puty Director of Consolidation should have affirmed that decision and rejected the revision,

(2.) THE learned counsel for the op posite parties Sri K. N. Misra has raised] a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable be cause it was dismissed by this court on 14th March, 1972 against Ram Shankar, opposite party No. 5, for the petitioner's failure to take any steps for service oi notice ot this petition against him. The submission is that the petition is no longer maintainable against the re maining opposite parties 3, 4, 6 to 8.

(3.) THE foregoing reasons compel me to the view that the preliminary ob jection raised by the opposite parties is well founded. It is, therefore, upheld and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Opposite parties 3, 4, 5 to 8 will be entitled to get their costs from the petitioner. Petition dismissed.