RAM PARTAP Vs. LEELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant who has been non-suited by both the Courts below, arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that consolidation proceedings took place in the village and the scheme was finally confirmed on 14.8.1964 and the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff. No objections under Section 21(2) or appeal under Section 21(3) or 21(4) of the Consolidation Act were preferred and the plaintiff became the owner in possession.

(3.) A petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act was made by Leela Ram, defendant No. 1 which was dismissed on 24.5.1967. An application was then made in 1972 for rehearing of the petition. That application was rejected on 27.2.1974 by the Additional Director and the allotment of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff remained unaffected. It is alleged that Leela Ram defendant No. 1 then made another petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act concealing the fact of dismissal of the earlier petition and also wrong facts were pleaded. However, this petition was accepted vide order dated 17.6.1976 by the Director Consolidation and the case was remanded. In pursuance of this order the Consolidation Officer later modified the allotment. The plaintiff then filed a petition under Section 42 against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated November 23, 1977. That petition resulted in its dismissal on September 6, 1978 by the Director. The said orders of the Consolidation Authorities are being challenged in the present suit on the grounds inter alia that the scheme had been finally confirmed and the plaintiff became the absolute owner in possession as allotment to him was not objected to by institution of any proceedings under Section 21(2), 21(3) or 21(4) of the Act; that the application of Leela Ram, defendant was not only barred by time, but it also stood decided in favour of the plaintiff on 27.2.1974, that in view of the order dated 27.2.1974, subsequent orders could not be passed by the Consolidation Authorities, that the order dated 17.6.1976 of the Director and the order dated November 23, 1977 of the Consolidation Officer as also the order dated September 6, 1978 of the Director are void, illegal and without jurisdiction.