RAMESH AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition arises out of two applications filed by the petitioners-one for setting aside an order dated 3.7.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer deciding the objections under Sec. 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the basis of a compromise. The other was an application to set aside the order dated 22.2.2000 passed under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules for making entries on the basis of the compromise order dated 3.7.1978. The Consolidation Officer allowed the application of the petitioner and set aside the compromise order dated 3.7.1978 and also passed an order dated 1.1.2001 setting aside the order dated 22.2.2000 under Rule 109-A. Against these two orders a revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 Birbal, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 21.5.2003 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has found the order dated 3.7.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer on the compromise and the order dated 22.2.2000 of the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A to be valid.

(2.) I have heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(3.) The submission of Sri R.C. Singh is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer without considering the material relied upon by the Consolidation Officer or the reasoning given by him. It appears that this contention has force. The reasons given by the Consolidation Officer for holding that the compromise appears to be farzi are several. On a visual examination of the record, the Consolidation Officer found that paper of some of the pages of the order sheet appeared to be new but an attempt was made to give impression that the file is an old one by applying smoke. These new pages it was observed did not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer. It was also found that although there is reference of certain statements of Shiv Nandan and Vikrama having been recorded but there is on the file only the statement of one person Birbal and that too does not bear the signature of the Consolidation Officer or of Birbal. There is also a finding that on the record there is a notice meant for service but it does not bear the date of issuance and although.it is shown to be served but the file does not indicate the date on which it was served. Other reasons have also been given to show that no service was effected upon the respondents. That apart the application under Rule 109-A was filed about ten years after the order said to have been passed. He also found that there was discrepancy in the signatures of the Consolidation Officer on the compromise on the one hand and those on the order on the other hand.