Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1106 (ALL)

Padam Chand v. D. D. C.

2014-04-04

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri O. P. Pandey for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.11.1998, 07.01.1999 and 18.03.2014 arising out of title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the properties of Rama Kant Pandey, who was chak holder of chak no. 153 of village Zamin Katghar, tahsil and district Azamgarh. On the basis of an agreement to sell, Nand Lal (respondent-3) filed an objection for recording his name over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 19.10.1993, decided the case in terms of the compromise. Rama Kant Pandey filed an application for recall of the order, which was dismissed by Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.5.1995. Thereafter, Rama Kant Pandey filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 3/861) from the aforesaid order. It appears that in revision also, a compromise was filed. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation, by the order dated 13.11.1998, held that so far as the first chak of Rama Kant Pandey is concerned, illegal transfer was made on the basis of an agreement to sell as well as compromise before Consolidation Officer, as such, the property was directed to be vested in Gaon Sabha and so far as the second chak of Rama Kant Pandey was concerned, in the revision, a sale deed was filed, as such, the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer to decide the case on the basis of the sale deed in respect of the second chak of Rama Kant Pandey. 4. After passing the aforesaid order, Nand Lal filed a review application before Deputy Director of Consolidation on 21.11.1998 and Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 07.01.1999 allowed the review application, on the ground that as along with the review application, the parties have filed a decree of the Civil Court and also filed a compromise on 24.12.1998, as such, the first chak which was directed to be vested in Gaon Sabha was directed to be recorded in the name of Nand Lal and the order dated 13.11.1998, in so far as it was in respect of the second chak, was not set aside. Admittedly, Rama Kant Pandey survived till 07.07.2012 and did not challenge the aforesaid order during his lifetime. 5. Admittedly, Rama Kant Pandey survived till 07.07.2012 and did not challenge the aforesaid order during his lifetime. 5. The petitioners filed an application dated 27.11.2012 for recall of the order dated 07.01.1999 and part of the order 13.11.1998 by which first chak of Rama Kant Pandey was vested in Gaon Sabha, on the ground that the aforesaid orders were secured by committing fraud. It has been stated that Rama Kant Pandey died on 07.07.2012 and thereafter, his properties were inherited by the petitioners, who are his heirs. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of forged compromise, directed to record the name of the respondent Nand Lal over the land of Rama Kant Pandey, while Rama Kant Pandey did not enter into compromise. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the order passed by Consolidation Officer and in that connection, when they were searching papers, they came to know about the orders dated 13.11.1998 and 07.01.1999, yesterday, i.e. the day before 27.11.2012. Earlier, also Nand Lal filed fraudulent compromise on 19.10.1993, which was not signed by Rama Kant Pandey and Rama Kant Pandey filed an application for recall of the order and to set aside the compromise. Although, due to illegal transfer, Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 13.11.1998 directed for vesting the first chak of Rama Kant Pandey in the State of U.P., but by the subsequent order dated 07.01.1999, the earlier order has been reviewed, although Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to review his order and the order dated 07.01.1999 was without jurisdiction. 6. The recall application was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by the impugned order dated 18.03.2014, held that the order dated 07.01.1999 was passed on the basis of a decree of Civil Court between the parties, as such, it was not reviewed but was corrected in view of the decree of Civil Court as the parties again filed a compromise. The recall application has been filed after delay of 13 years, for which, no satisfactory explanation has been given. The petitioners have not disclosed as to on what date they came to know about the fraud being committed. On these findings, the recall application was rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 7. The recall application has been filed after delay of 13 years, for which, no satisfactory explanation has been given. The petitioners have not disclosed as to on what date they came to know about the fraud being committed. On these findings, the recall application was rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally held that the date of knowledge of the fraud has not been disclosed in the recall application, although in paragraph-3 of the recall application, the petitioners have stated that yesterday they came to know about the fraud being committed, meaning thereby that the recall application was filed on 27.11.2012 and the date of knowledge of the fraud was 26.11.2012 and the finding in this respect is vitiated. He further submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to review his order dated 13.11.1998 and the order dated 07.01.1999 is an order passed in the review application and was totally without jurisdiction, as such, in any case, that order was liable to be set aside and the recall application in that respect, was liable to be allowed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally held that it was a correction in the earlier order on the basis of decree of Civil Court. He submits that sufficient explanation has been given for condoning the inordinate delay, but by a cryptic and unreasoned order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the recall application, holding that sufficient explanation has not been given. 8. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. 9. So far as the order dated 13.11.1998 is concerned, it is not based upon any compromise, rather it was passed on merit, after hearing Rama Kant Pandey, who was the revisionist. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the order dated 13.11.1998 was secured by committing fraud. The revision was filed by Rama Kant Pandey and it was decided on 13.11.1998. Rama Kant Pandey survived up to 07.07.2012 and did not challenge this order during his lifetime. The revision was filed by him as such the order was within his knowledge. Right, title and interest in first chak of Rama Kant Pandey has came to an end by this order dated 13.11.1998 but he did not challenge it during his life time. The revision was filed by him as such the order was within his knowledge. Right, title and interest in first chak of Rama Kant Pandey has came to an end by this order dated 13.11.1998 but he did not challenge it during his life time. After his death, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.11.1998. In the recall application absolutely no reason has been given as to what prevented Rama Kant Pandey from challenging the order dated 13.11.1998, during his life time. Therefore, there is no ground to recall the order dated 13.11.1998. It is only after his death, the heirs of Rama Kant Pandey have filed the recall application and in such circumstances, the delay of more than 13 years was not liable to be condoned. 10. So far as the order dated 07.01.1999 is concerned, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that in pursuance of the decree of Civil Court between the parties, which was agreed by filing fresh compromise, correction was made in the order dated 13.11.1998. The power to correct the order has been given under Section 42-A of the Act. Nand Lal was earlier claiming title over first chak of Rama Kant Pandey, on the basis of an agreement to sell and delivery of possession over it. The petitioners have not denied the fact that Nand Lal had not filed any civil suit on the basis of agreement to sell in his favour, either in the recall application or in the writ petition. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that Rama Kant Pandey during his lifetime made any effort for setting aside the order dated 13.11.1998. In the recall application, no reason has been given as to what prevented Rama Kant Pandey from challenging these orders during his lifetime, which shows that Civil Court decree was within the knowledge of Rama Kant Pandey and due to which he had entered into compromise at the time of passing the order dated 07.01.1999. 11. In any case, earlier the property was vested in Gaon Sabha and the interest of Rama Kant Pandey came to an end by order dated 13.11.1998 and Rama Kant Pandey did not challenge the order dated 13.11.1998. By the order dated 07.01.1999, the property was reverted to Nand Lal on the basis of decree of Civil Court. 11. In any case, earlier the property was vested in Gaon Sabha and the interest of Rama Kant Pandey came to an end by order dated 13.11.1998 and Rama Kant Pandey did not challenge the order dated 13.11.1998. By the order dated 07.01.1999, the property was reverted to Nand Lal on the basis of decree of Civil Court. At the most, Gaon Sabha/State of U.P. are the aggrieved persons and not the heirs of Rama Kant Pandey. As such, on this ground, the proceedings cannot be re-open on the application of the heirs of Rama Kant Pandey, after such a long time. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.