Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 28 (UTT)

PHOOL SINGH v. JOINT DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION & TWO

2013-01-16

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.4.1993 passed by respondent no.1/Joint Director of Consolidation, whereby the respondent no.1 has set aside the judgment and order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar dated 29.1.1993. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that during the consolidation operation in village Panhowali Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar,the petitioner was allotted chak no.147 and respondent no.2 Smt. Raj Bala was allotted chak no.256. The original holding of the petitioner was plot no.363/5, 363/6, 365/8, 372, 50/1, 50/2, 51/1, 51/2, 282/3, 284/5 situated at Village Panchowali and original holding of respondent no.2 was plot no.363 and plot nos.71, 72, 87, 88, 89/3 and 89/4 and she was allotted chak no.256. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, two chaks were proposed to respondent no.2, one at plot no.24 1, 245, 246, 252, 253 and another at plot no.363/4, 362/2 and 362/1 whereas the petitioner was allotted proposed chaks at plot no.365/8 and another at plot no.363/4, 363/6. According to the petitioner, the land allotted to the respondent no.2 is not her original holding and wholly uran chak has been given to her/respondent no.2. Original holding of respondent no.2 being plot no.171 is marked as bachat land. The petitioner filed objections against the chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer u/s 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, wherein it was prayed that he may be given chak at his original holding at plot no.363/6 instead at plot no.365/8. Objections were allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the petitioner was given chak at plot no.363/6. Aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer, the respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. By an order dated 21.1.1992, appeal was dismissed. Further aggrieved, the respondent no.2 preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who set aside the order of S.O.C. and remanded the case to the S.O.C. to decide the same afresh after taking into consideration the compromise arrived at between the respondent no.2 Smt. Raj Bala and respondent no.3 Ved Pal. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the said compromise, vide judgment and order dated 29.1.1993, decided the appeal and affirmed its earlier judgment and order dated 21.1.1992. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the said compromise, vide judgment and order dated 29.1.1993, decided the appeal and affirmed its earlier judgment and order dated 21.1.1992. Further aggrieved, respondent no.2 filed another revision, which was allowed by respondent no.1/Joint Director Consolidation, vide judgment and order dated 20.4.1993. Vide order dated 20.4.1993, respondent no.1 has held that the learned S.O.C. has committed manifest error of law by not considering the compromise which was made between respondent no.2 and 3. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the courts below. 4. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide his earlier order, whereby the case was remanded back to the S.O.C., had directed to consider the compromise which was made between respondent no.2 and 3. In this regard, learned S.O.C., in its order dated 29.1.1993, had given a categorical finding on the issue that the compromise is not a valid one. 5. I have also perused the alleged compromise. A perusal of same shows that the compromise has not been verified by the court and it is only in form of an application to the S.O.C. which was filed by respondent no.3 Ved Pal S/o Jhandu wherein a prayer was made that if plot no.363/4 is given to respondent no.2/Smt. Raj Bala W/o Madan Lal then he has no objection. Even this alleged compromise is not signed by Smt. Raj Bala. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that plot no.363/4 belongs to Jhandu, father of Ved Pal and it is not the original holding of Ved Pal. Therefore, the learned S.O.C. has rightly ignored the compromise and has maintained his earlier order dated 21.1.1992. The learned S.O.C. while deciding the revision has not dealt with this issue as to whether the compromise is a valid compromise rather it has been held that the learned S.O.C. has not passed the order on the basis of compromise which was made by Ved Pal when even Ved Pal was not tenure holder of the said plot in fact his father was the tenure holder of the said plot. 7. 7. In the light of aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the alleged compromise is not a valid compromise in the eyes of law and the impugned order on the basis of same is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.4.1993 passed by respondent no.1/Joint Director of Consolidation, is set aside. Order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.1.1993 is maintained.