KHEMHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Awadesh Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Maurya for the respondent No. 2. Despite service of notice respondents Nos. 3 to 7 have not put in appearance.

(2.) The petitioner is chak holder No. 41. After chak carvation proceeding in the village came to be finalised a pending appeal arising out of proceedings under Sec. 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, between the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to 7, came to be decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 12.12.1974 and respondent No. 2 was declared Bhumidhar of plot No. 78/40. Its valuation was to be adjusted in his chak. Respondent No. 2 moved an application on 8.2.1978 for making allotment of the said valuation in his chak. Assistant Consolidation Officer called for a report of consolidation who submitted the same on 16.11.1978. It was mentioned in the said report that allotment to be made in chak of respondent No. 2 will effect the chak holder Nos. 247 and 199. The Assistant Consolidation Officer forwarded the report to the Consolidation Officer who in his turn forwarded the same to the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Vide order dated 25.11.1978 the Settlement Officer Consolidation remanded the reference back to the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner had no concern with these proceedings as the adjustment to be made in the chak of respondent No. 2 on the basis of the order passed in proceedings under Sec. 9-A (2) of the Act was not affecting him. After remand an alleged compromise said to have been signed by the petitioner under which the petitioner agreed for taking out some area from his chak situate adjacent to his abadi facing road side was filed before the Consolidation Officer. On the basis of compromise the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 26.12.1978 accepting the compromise and made adjustments accordingly. The said order came to the knowledge of the petitioner when it was being given effect to on the spot. He moved an application for recalling the same on the ground that he never entered into any compromise. It was also alleged that he is a literate person and makes signatures whereas the compromise bears his alleged thumb impression which is forged. During the pendency of the proceedings for recall, the Pradhan of the village also moved an application that he never signed the compromise and his alleged signature was forged.

(3.) The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioner makes signature whereas the compromise bears his thumb impression and one Sakai Narain who has identified the signatures and thumb impressions on the compromise is neither a member of consolidation committee nor an Advocate or a registered clerk. He also relied upon statement made by Pradhan that his signatures were forged on the compromise. Based on the aforesaid finding the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.6.1983 allowed the application and recalled the order dated 26.12.1978. Aggrieved by the same respondent No. 2 filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 28.4.1984 allowed the said revision.