SUNRI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 11th August, 1971 passed by Sri Parmanand Misra, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, the order dated 31st December, 1970 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 25th January, 1968 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in a proceeding under Section 9 -A(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act).

(2.) THE facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. A conciliation in respect of the plots in dispute was arrived at between the parties and the order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 25th January, 1968. The Petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the conciliation mainly on the ground that she did not enter into any compromise in respect of Khata No. 1 -B, hence the order passed may be set aside. There was some delay in filing the appeal which was condoned and thereafter the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided the case on merits holding that the rights of the parties are based on the basis of the nature of the acquisition of the plots which were ancestral In this connection in appeal no opportunity was given to the Petitioner, or to the contesting Respondents to lead evidence. The revision of the Petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation also met the same fate.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents has urged that in respect of the compromise the allegations were made about the fraud and the contents of conciliation were also challenged. In that event it shall be a case of voidable document and the Civil Court alone bad jurisdiction to decide the controversy and not the Consolidation Authorities. According to learned Counsel the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was not maintainable as she should have filed a civil suit. He placed reliance on Sheopal v. Smt. Lakhpata : 1979 AWC 524 'DB'. But that was a case in respect of the suit filed in Civil Court for cancellation of the gale -deed and controversy was about void or voidable nature of document and In the meanwhile the consolidation operations had commenced. The question arose as to whether a suit for cancellation of sale -deed can be abated under Section 5(2)(a) of the Act. On those facts it was held by this Court that the suit for cancellation of the sale -deed which was voidable in nature would abate under Section 5(2)(a) of the Act. But that analogy cannot be borrowed in the instant case where against an order under Section 9 -A(1) of the Act the appeal has been provided under Section 11 of the Act.