UMA SHANKAR Vs. BHOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 2-9-1998 passed by Sri S.S. Tripathi, Additional Commissioner, I, Allahabad allowing the revision and quashing orders of SDO, Handia, dated 24-10-1973 and 11-9-1997.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Deep Narain filed a suit under Section 202 of Z.A. Act against Brahmdutt on 29-8-1973. This case was decided by the SDO on 24-10-1973 on the basis of compromise. After that on 8-9-1994 Uma Shankar and others who are sons of Deep Narain moved an application before the SDO, Handia, to give effect to the order dated 24-10-1973 in the land records. Later on Bhola Nath filed an application on 20- 6-1995 stating that since his interest in involved, he should be impleaded as party. He also stated that he has bought the land from original tenant Brahmdutt. On 6-2-1996 the SDO ordered to act upon the order dated 24-10-1973. Against this, an application was moved by Bholanath which was dismissed by the SDO on 11-9- 1997. Against these orders of SDO, Bhola Nath filed revision which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the village where the land in dispute is situated, consolidation operation started on 26-9-1969 and it lasted till 8-3- 1980; hence the order of SDO, Handia, dated 24-10-1973 is without jurisdiction.

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party argued that in the village Chaturpatti consolidation started in the year 1969 and it went upto 1980; the suit was filed during consolidation which is a clear-cut case of fraud because during consolidation operation the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that Brahm Dutt's name was entered during consolidation operation and it remained even after consolidation operation was over; the opposite-party Bholanath bought the land in question from Brahmdutt and his name was accordingly mutated; that during the life-time of Deepnarain he never tried to execute the said order and decree dated 24-10-1973 and it is only in the year 1994 an application was moved by sons of Deepnarain to execute the order dated 24-10-1973 which was highly time barred; that on coming to know about this application of Uma Shankar and others, the opposite party Bholanath moved an application ignoring which the SDO ordered to execute the earlier order dated 24-10-1973; Hence review application was filed which was again dismissed by the SDO and finally revision was filed which was rightly allowed by the Additional Commissioner and finally argued that since fraud has been committed by Deepanarain by filing a suit when the village was under the consolidation operation, the question of executing the order dated 24-10-1973 does not arise at all and the Additional Commissioner has rightly quashed the impugned orders.