Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2691 (ALL)

BABU RAM v. A. D. C.

2017-11-21

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Sri V.K. Agarwal, Advocate has also been heard in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 25.1.2006. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.4, Pratap Singh purchased half share of plot nos. 196 area 0-7-0 and 197 area 2-2-0 and 198 area 0-8-0 situate in village Surajpur District Ghaziabad from one Chandru vide registered sale-deed dated 7.11.1981. Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 obtained permission from the Settlement Officer to transfer the said property to the petitioner Babu Ram and others. Permission was granted by the Settlement Officer on 16.1.1984 and later on extended on 7.3.1984. Accordingly, the land was transferred by Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 in favour of petitioner Babu Ram and others vide two registered sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984. These sale-deeds are stated to be intact till date and that the petitioners are absolute owners and in possession of the said property. Later on, the said Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 applied for cancellation of the permission orders dated 16.3.1984 and 7.3.1984. The said permission orders were cancelled by the Settlement Officer vide his order dated 20.12.1984. 3. This order dated 20.12.1984 was then challenged by the petitioners before the Consolidation court but was kept intact even up to the stage of the proceedings before the Additional Director of Consolidation. The various orders passed by the Settlement Officer and the Additional Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. During pendency of this writ petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners and the said Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 and it has been stated that the sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984 be treated as valid and the names of the petitioners be mutated in the revenue record accordingly. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by Pratap Singh, respondent no.4, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit in support of the compromise application no. 311913 of 2017. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by Pratap Singh, respondent no.4, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit in support of the compromise application no. 311913 of 2017. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit (Annexure-1) it has been stated that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties the said Pratap Singh has no objection and agreed that the cancellation order dated 20.12.1984 by the Settlement Officer as well as the subsequent order dated 18.5.1985 passed by the Settlement Officer, the order dated 5.7.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the order dated 17.12.1985 passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation be quashed and set aside and the names of petitioner Babu Ram and others be mutated in the revenue records on the basis of registered sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984. 5. Sri V.K. Agarwal, Advocate, in the meantime, moved an impleadment application stating therein that Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of plot no. 198 with applicant Rajendra Singh Bhati son of Mahtab Singh. On this application the court passed the following order on 25.1.2006. “The applicant is seeking impleadment on the strength of an agreement to sell executed by respondent no.4 in his favour. No vested right is created in favour of the applicant merely by an agreement to sell executed in his favour during the pendency of the proceedings. An apprehension has been expressed by the applicant that since respondent no.4 has entered into an agreement to sell he may not be interested in pursuing the case diligently. Even then also the applicant is not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the writ petition. However, in case the applicant seeking impleadment wants to contest the proceedings he may be heard at the time of hearing. The application stands disposed of.” 6. In this order it has been clearly held by the court that the petitioners have filed the impleadment application only on the strength of an agreement to sell executed by respondent no.4, Pratap Singh in his favour and, therefore, no vested right is created in favour of the applicant merely by an agreement to sell said to have been executed in favour of the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. This shows that the sale deed executed by respondent no.4, Pratap Singh in favour of petitioner, Babu Ram and others was prior in point of time to the agreement to sell executed by Pratap Singh in favour of Rajendra Singh Bhati and it is only because the said Pratap Singh had obtained order from the Settlement Officer cancelling the earlier permission to execute the sale-deed in favour of petitioner Babu Ram and others that the sale-deeds were under a cloud. Now, in view of the compromise arrived at between Pratap Singh, respondent no.4 and the petitioners whereby the said Pratap Singh had agreed that he accepts the sale deeds dated 20.1. 1984 and 31.3.1984 executed by him in favour of Babu Ram petitioner and others and, therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition may be quashed, the sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioner Babu Ram and others would stand validated upon quashing of the orders impugned in the writ petition and any agreement executed by the said Pratap Singh in favour of Rajendra Singh Bhati during the pendency of the writ proceedings would not confer any right over plot no. 198 in favour of said Rajendra Singh Bhati. 7. The affidavit filed as Annexure-1 to the compromise application reads as under:- "In matter of: Shri Babu Ram and others Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation Affidavit Affidavit on behalf of Pratap Singh s/o Shri Khachedu r/o village Makoda, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 1. That my above name and address are true and correct. 2. That I am the applicant in person and as such, I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the compromise and I am competent to swear this affidavit. 3. That the facts in short are that the deponent Pratap Singh purchased half share of the plots 196 area 0-7-0 and 197 area 2-2-0 and 198 0-8-0 situated at village Surajpur District Ghaziabad from Chandru vide registered sale-deed dated 07-11-1981. 4. That later the deponent Pratap Singh obtained permission from Settlement Officer to transfer the above property to the petitioner Babu Ram and others. The permission to transfer the land was granted on 16.01.1984 and later the permission was extended vide order dated 07.03.1984. 5. 4. That later the deponent Pratap Singh obtained permission from Settlement Officer to transfer the above property to the petitioner Babu Ram and others. The permission to transfer the land was granted on 16.01.1984 and later the permission was extended vide order dated 07.03.1984. 5. That in pursuance of the permissions orders, the land was transferred by deponent Pratap Singh in favour of petitioner Babu Ram and others vide two registered sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.3.1984 respectively. These sale-deeds are intact till date and the purchasers are absolute owner in possession of the property. Pratap Singh accept and admits these sale-deeds to be valid in every respect and admits that the petitioners are owners in possession of the property ever since the date of sale-deeds. 6. That later deponent Pratap Singh applied for cancellation of the permission order dated 16.03.1984 and 07.03.1984. Both the above permission orders were cancelled by Settlement Officer vide order dated 20.12.1984. 7. That the cancellation order dated 20.12.1984 was challenged by the petitioner before the Consolidation Courts but the cancellation order dated 20.12.1984 was kept intact by all the courts of consolidator and even up to the court of ADC. The ultimate order of the ADC dated 12.12.1985 as well as earlier orders dated 18.05.1985 passed by Settlement Officer and 05.07.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer are under challenge in this writ petition. 8. That now deponent Pratap Singh and the purchasers, the petitioners have compromised in the matter and Pratap Singh agreed and accepts that the sale-deeds dated 20.1.1984 and 31.03.1984 be treated as valid and the names of the purchasers/vendees/petitioner Babu Ram and others be mutated in revenue record. Pratap Singh has transferred his entire share. 9. That under the above circumstance and in the light of the compromise between the parties, Pratap Singh has no objection and agreed that the cancellation order dated 20.12.1984 by Settlement Officer as well as the subsequent order dated 18.05.1985 passed by Settlement Officer and 05.07.1985 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as 17.12.1985 passed by ADC be quashed and set aside. 10. That the names of petitioner Babu Ram and others be mutated in revenue records on the basis of registered sale-deeds dated 20.01.1984 and 31.03.1984. " 8. 10. That the names of petitioner Babu Ram and others be mutated in revenue records on the basis of registered sale-deeds dated 20.01.1984 and 31.03.1984. " 8. The High Court in Surendra Nath Rai and another v. Prahlad Singh and others, 2002(93) R.D. 468 has held that a writ petition in the nature of certiorari can be decided on the basis of a compromise. Similarly, in 2001 (2) CRC-6, Ram Sajiwan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, the writ petition was allowed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties and the orders impugned in the writ petition were quashed. 9. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in the light of the compromise arrived at between Pratap Singh, respondent no.4, the original vendor and the petitioner Babu Ram and others. The impugned orders dated 20.12.1984, 18.5.1985, 5.7.1985, 30.7.1985, 7.12.1985 and 17.12.1985 are accordingly, quashed.