SHIV PRASAD Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th May, 2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur setting aside order dated 26-6-1999 of Consolidation Officer passed on the basis of compromise dated 8-6-1999 as well as order dated 18-6- 2003, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal whereby the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer attended with direction to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of adducing evidence as also of hearing to the parties.

(2.) THE facts beyond the pale of controversy are that the land in dispute was acquired by one Babu Lal, a common ancestor of all three branches of Hira Lal, Kamta and Moti. It would thus appear that all the three Branches inherited the property. It would further appear that some compromise-dated 8-6-1999 came to be entered into between the parties and on the basis of said compromise, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 26-6-1999 according approval to the compromise centring round the land situated in Villages Ramval, Khuthan, Suhwal and Brumua. It further appears that by the said compromise instead of portioning out shares to the parties in accordance with law, the parties were given land on the basis of some family settlement allegedly entered into between the parties. An appeal preferred by Hari Shanker heir of Hira Lal on the ground that no such compromise was entered into and that someone impersonating himself as Hari Shanker was set up by the petitioner to obtain compromise attended with the relief that and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise by which rights of Opp. Parties were affected in all the Villages be set aside. THE Appellate authority by an order dated 18-6-2003 rejected appeal on the ground that the order was rightly passed on the basis compromise entered into between the parties. A revision was also filed by Hari Shanker on the ground that the revisionist was entitled to get one third share in all the properties of Hira Lal including properties situated in Bengal and Madhya Pradesh and further the alleged compromise relied upon by petitioner was the outcome of fraud. In the ultimate analysis, revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which order is impugned in the present petition. While allowing the Revision and remanding the matter to Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh, the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded categorical findings to the effect that there was no date mentioned in the order-sheet of 8-6-1999 on which alleged compromise was claimed to have been entered into between the parties and verified; that the first date in the order sheet was 11-5-1999 and thereafter 19- 6-1999 was the date fixed; that on 26-6-1999 order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged compromise that the matter has been protracting since-long; that the alleged compromise appears to be a forged compromise, which was entered into between the parties on the date on which case was not fixed and further that there was also nothing on record to show that how it was verified. Finally, it was held that the alleged compromise was not a lawful compromise entered, into between the parties and in consequence the said compromise, was set aside and the matter was remanded to determine the shares of the parties on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity to adduce evidence and of hearing to the parties.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for the Caveator-Opp. Parties as well as learned Standing Counsel urged that compromise which is not lawful could not be relied upon by the Consolidation Officer. They urged that lawful compromise implies that it shall not be one militating to the provisions of law. It was further urged that right of a party or his share is defined in the statute and the compromise which is contrary to statute falls short of acceptability. It was further urged that in the present case Hari Shanker did not enter into compromise and the alleged compromise was entered into by setting up some one who impersonated himself as Hari Shanker and affixed false signature posing it to be that of Hari Shanker on the date on which case was not fixed. The learned Counsel also alleged that the entire web of deceit was woven behind the back of Opp. Parties. Lastly, it was urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly set aside the compromise and rightly remanded the matter to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.