AVADH NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.D. Ojha appearing for the petitioners.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under.

(3.) In the basic year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of respondent No. 3. During consolidation, an objection was filed by the petitioners claiming 1/ 3rd share. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.11.1975 allowed the objection on the basis of the compromise between the parties, and accordingly, the petitioners were given 1/3rd share in the khata in dispute. After about 13 years, the order passed by Consolidation Officer was put to challenge by respondent No. 3 by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, inter alia, on the grounds that he was given in adoption to one Pran Nath and the khata in dispute after death of Pran Nath was inherited by him as adopted son and his name came to be recorded and he was the sole bhoomidhar; order dated 29.11.1975 said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer in respect of khata in dispute giving 1/3rd share to the petitioners was forged and fabricated. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioners to summon the appellant (respondent No. 3 herein) for cross-examination, which was rejected vide order dated 1.8.1992. The petitioners went up in revision. Again a compromise is said to have been filed before the revisional Court. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.1.1993 dismissed the revision and set aside the order dated 1.8.1992 and remanded the case back. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 18.3.1993 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer and remanded the case back to decide the same afresh on merits keeping in view the compromise alleged to have been filed by the parties before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 challenged the order before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 31460 of 1994. This Court finding that delay of 13 years in filing the appeal has been condoned without recording proper reasons and the matter was remanded back without testing the judgment of the Consolidation Officer, set aside the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as revisional order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanded the case back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh. After remand the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 7.3.2008 finding that there are sufficient grounds, condoned the delay and after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioners went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 25.11.2008 dismissed the same.