SAVITRI DEVI Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Arun Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.

(2.) Respondent no.4 was recorded as a tenure holder on Plot No.2584/9 (total area 11 biswa). During consolidation proceedings held in the Village under the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the petitioner filed objections under section 9-A of the Act praying that he may be recorded as Sirdar over 4 Biswa on Plot No.2584/9. On the aforesaid objections of the petitioner, Case No. 537 of 1981/82 was registered in the Court of Consolidation Officer. It is evident from the record, especially the impugned order dated 18.12.1991, passed by respondent no.1 that consolidation proceedings started in the Village in 1972 and the said objections were filed almost 10 years after the consolidation proceedings had started in the Village. The said objections were highly belated. However, strangely, in Case No.537 of 1981-82, a compromise was filed on 3.2.1982 which was ostensibly signed by the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and wherein respondent no. 4 had admitted that petitioner was in adverse possession over 4 Biswa on Plot No.2584/9 regarding which objections were filed by him under section 9-A of the Act. On the said objections, statement of the petitioner and respondent no.4 was ostensibly recorded before two members of the Consolidation Committee on 3.2.1982 itself and the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3.2.1982, that is, on the same date, allowed Case No.537 of 1981-82 accepting the compromise and directed that petitioner be recorded as Sirdar of 4 Biswa on Plot No.2584/9. Against the order dated 3.2.1982 passed by Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal which was registered as Appeal No.127/41/8 and the said appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 4.8.1986 on the ground that the delay in filing the said appeal was not liable to be condoned as the same was filed almost one year after the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is pertinent to state that the contention of respondent no. 4 in the aforesaid appeal was that he never entered into any compromise with the petitioner and had not put his thumb impression on the document allegedly reflecting the compromise between the petitioner and respondent no.4. Against the judgement and order dated 4.8.1986 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no. 4 filed a revision under section 48 of the Act which was registered as Revision No.457 in the court of respondent no.1. Initially respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 24.9.1986 allowed the aforesaid revision and set aside the order dated 3.2.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner, order dated 24.09.1986 was recalled by respondent no.1 vide his order dated 29.10.1986. However, after hearing the parties, respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 18.12.1991 again allowed Revision No.457 instituted by respondent no.4. The order dated 18.12.1991 passed by respondent no.1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that order dated 18.12.1991 is based on surmises and conjecture and the findings recorded in the aforesaid order are without evidence. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that it would be evident from the order dated 4.8.1986 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that the alleged compromise dated 3.2.1982 was executed before two members of the Consolidation Committee of the Village who had verified the compromise and the said findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation have not been reversed by the respondent no. 1 in his order dated 18.12.1991, and therefore, the order dated 18.12.1991 is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.