Dismissed

Ram Kumar Prajapati and 6 and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024WRIB/566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order dismissing a revision against a remand with directions for a fresh trial regarding land consolidation. The High Court found sufficient dispute and evidence required regarding the validity of a settlement, holding that the order sheets were not produced to verify date errors, and dismissed the petition without merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Kumar Prajapati and 6 and Others Vs Deputy Director… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82713

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 566 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Prajapati And 6 And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Tripathi,Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur whereby he allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the controversy afresh. This order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was assailed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who also by means of its order dated 24.01.2024 dismissed the revision affirming the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order of remand has primarily urged that rights of the parties were crystalized on the basis of a compromise that was arrived at in between the parties on 15.01.1983.

¶10

At the behest of the private respondents, the said compromise was assailed in an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after 17 years. The grounds of fraud were raised.

¶11

The Settlement Officer of Consolidation considering the respective contentions found that the delay was adequately explained and thereafter granting the liberty of condoning the delay, it allowed the appeal by means of judgment dated 10.10.2019 and remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the disputes afresh. This came to be filed assailing by filing a revision which also met the same fate.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was not justified in allowing the appeal especially when the compromise was duly signed by the parties. While passing the order, the Settlement

¶13

Officer of Consolidation erred in referring to certain dates in its order which was patently erroneous and thus it is clear that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not put its judicial mind to the controversy and allowed the appeal in a casual manner.

¶14

Once, the rights have been crystalized, there was no sufficient cause as to why the appeal was filed with delay. The petitioners assailed the order by filing a revision wherein the aforesaid issue was raised but it did not find adequate support from the Deputy Director of Consolidation who dismissed it and thus the two orders deserve to be set aside.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed that the alleged compromise was arrived at between the parties on 15.01.1983. This came to be challenged by filing an appeal on 07.04.2000 after about 17 years.

¶16

After hearing the parties, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation found that the notices were not issued to the private respondents and in absence of notice the fact that a compromise was arrived was doubtful. It also noticed that the Advocate who is said to have verified the compromise and had identified the parties, his vakalatnama was not on the record and thus considering that the compromise was fraudelent, it set aside the same and directed the parties to before the Consolidation Officer to contest the same on merits. The same has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶17

This Court further finds that it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice which was not sent and the Advocate who had signed and identified the parties was not found on record. This is a finding of fact.

¶18

It also could not be disputed that whether the compromise was filed after due notice and the parties were aware of it is again a question of fact which can only be considered and decided upon leading of evidence.

¶19

In this view of the matter, where the mere submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dates as mentioned in the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are not correct could only be verified if the proper order sheets of the said dates were brought on record. That has not been done, accordingly, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted especially when there is an order of remand which does not impact the rights of the parties which are yet to be decided on merits.

¶20

The petitioner shall be at liberty of raising all his objections and leading evidence in support of his plea which needless to say shall be considered and decided by the Consolidation Officer concerned where the matter is pending.

¶21

This Court in the aforesaid facts and circumstances does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed . In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Asheesh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kumar Prajapati and 6 and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Kumar Prajapati and 6 and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Mansharam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

Smt. Indira Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Barabanki and 5 Others

Ram Lal Vs Consolidation Officer, 1 , Sadar, Sultanpur and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others