Nandini Devi v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ayodhya
2024-03-14
SAURABH LAVANIA
body2024
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri Krishna Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the side opposite. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya (in short 'SOC') passed in Appeal No. 797/1866/1737 (Rajeshwari Devi Versus Nandini Devi), as also the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ayodhya (in short 'DDC') in Revision No. 859 (Nandini Devi Versus Rajeshwari Devi). 3. Brief facts of the case, are to the effect that the land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 76 (new number 66) situated at Village-Moradabad, Tehsil-Rudauli, District-Faizabad now Ayodhya, was recorded in the name of one Bhagwan Bux Singh. The Bhagwan Bux Singh expired on 04.12.1991, thereafter the name of his wife namely Rajeshwari Devi (opposite party no.3) was recorded in the revenue records in terms of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950') as applicable at relevant point of time. Section 171 of the Act of 1950, applicable at relevant point of time reads as under:- "[171.
Section 171 of the Act of 1950, applicable at relevant point of time reads as under:- "[171. General order of succession - Subject to the provisions of Section 169, when a bhumidhar [**] or asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below- (a) the male lineal descendant in the line of descent in equal shares per strips: Provided first that, the son of a pre-deceased son how low-so-over shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the predeceased son, had he been alive: Provided secondly that, subject to the provisions of the first proviso, the share of a predeceased male lineal descendant will devolve upon his widow who has not remarried, and Provided thirdly that if no male lineal descendant in male line of descent is alive the inheritance shall be governed by clause (b); (b) widow and widowed mother and widow of a pre-deceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who have not remarried: Provided first that co-widows will together get one share, and Provided secondly that the widow of a nearer descendant will exclude that of a remoter one in the same branch; (c) [Deleted.] (d) father; (e) [Deleted.] (ee) unmarried daughter; (f) brother, being the son of the same father as the deceased; (ff) unmarried sister; (g) married daughter; (h) daughter's son; (i) brother's son, the brother having been son of the same father as the deceased; (j) father's father; (k) father's mother, who has not remarried; (1) son's daughter; (m) married sister; (n) half-sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased; (o) sister's son; (00) half-sister's son, the sister having been the daughter of the same father as the deceased; (p) brother's son's son; (q) father's father's son ; (r) father's father's son's son.]" 4. After the aforesaid, during consolidation proceedings, the petitioner namely Smt. Nandini Devi wife of Devendra Kumar Singh daughter of (Bhagwan Bux Singh and Rajeshwari Devi) raised her claim over the property in dispute i.e. Gata No. 76 (new number 66), detailed above. 5. It would be apt to indicate that the claim of the petitioner before the authorities under the Act of 1953 as also before this Court is based upon the unregistered 'Will' dated 03.12.1991. 6.
5. It would be apt to indicate that the claim of the petitioner before the authorities under the Act of 1953 as also before this Court is based upon the unregistered 'Will' dated 03.12.1991. 6. During the consolidation proceedings in a chak, Appeal No. 1418 of 2023 (Munni Devi Versus Bhagwan Bux Singh and Others), the statement(s) of attesting witnesse(s) of 'Will' dated 03.12.1991 were recorded and based upon the same the petitioner (Smt. Nandini Devi) and opposite party no. 3 (Rajeshwari Devi) were substituted in place of Bhagwan Bux Singh (died during the pendency of appeal on 04.12.1991) and a compromise was also filed in the said appeal and therefore appellate authority namely SOC, referred the matter to Assistant Consolidation Officer concerned. 7. The copies of the statement(s) of attesting witnesses have been placed on record by means of filing supplementary affidavit dated 07.03.2024 and perusal thereof, would show that these witnesses were not cross examined and at this stage, on being asked as to whether these statements can be considered, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that these statements cannot be considered, as per law. 8. After the order passed by the SOC dated 20.01.1992, the ACO proceeded in the matter and passed the order dated 24.02.1992. This order dated 24.02.1992 was passed in case no. 125 under Section 12 of the Act of 1953 (Rajeshwari Devi Versus Bagwan Bux Singh (since died).
8. After the order passed by the SOC dated 20.01.1992, the ACO proceeded in the matter and passed the order dated 24.02.1992. This order dated 24.02.1992 was passed in case no. 125 under Section 12 of the Act of 1953 (Rajeshwari Devi Versus Bagwan Bux Singh (since died). The order dated 24.02.1992 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ayodhya, on reproduction reads as under:- ^^i=koyh is'k gqbZA i{k gkftj vk;sA fuEu 'krZokj fd;kA gLrgkj tkjh djk;k x;k] fe;kn vUnj bLrgkj ds fo:) dksbZ vkifRr ugha vk;h rFkk fnukad 24-2-92 dks nksuksa i{kksa ds chp le>kSrk izLrqr fd;k x;kA xzke iz/kku eq0 olhe us nLrhd fd;kA xzke eqjknkckn dh vkdkj i= 23 Hkkx&1 ds dzekad 73] 89 rFkk 76 ds lsDVj ua0 2 izFke pd o lsDVj ua0 5 f}rh; pd e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= NaXxk flag fuoklh eqjknkckn dk uke [kkfjt djds eq0 jkts'ojh nsoh csok Hkxoku c['k flag fu0 eqjknkckn dk uke crkSj okfjl ntZ djus dh ekax dh xbZ gS rFkk dzekad 76 ds lsDVj ua06 r`rh; pd ls e`rd Hkxoku c['k flag iq= NaXxk flag dk uke [kkfjt djds Jheh ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj flag fu0 eqjknkckn dk uke crkSj le>kSrk }kjk ntZ djus dh ekax dh xbZ gSA le>kSrk iढ+dj lqukus ds ckn eq0 olhe iz/kku us rlnhd fd;kA^^ 9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.1992 passed by ACO, opposite party no.3/Rajeshwari Devi wife of Bhagwan Bux Singh, mother of present petitioner namely Nandini Devi, preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953. The appeal was filed with some delay. After considering the facts and material available on record, the SOC condoned the delay and decide the appeal no. 797/1866/1737 filed by opposite party no.3/Rajeshwari Devi, challenging the order dated 24.02.1992, on merits vide order dated 05.09.2016. 10. The SOC after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the signature over the compromise in issue, as also Section 171(2) of the Act of 1950, decided the case in favour of opposite party no.3/Rajeshwari Devi and rejected the claim of the petitioner by impugned order dated 05.09.2016.
10. The SOC after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the signature over the compromise in issue, as also Section 171(2) of the Act of 1950, decided the case in favour of opposite party no.3/Rajeshwari Devi and rejected the claim of the petitioner by impugned order dated 05.09.2016. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- ^^tgka rd bl ekeys es xq.knks"k ij foospuk dk iz'u gS] pwafd vihykfFkZuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk xq.knks"k ij viuh cgl dh xbZ gS ijUrq izfri{kh }kjk i;kZIr volj nsus ds ckn Hkh vihy ds xq.knks"k ij viuk dFku izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy, i=koyh ij miyC/k muds izfrokn i= esa fd;s x;s dFku rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij bl vihy esa xq.knks"k ij fu.kZ; fd;k tk jgk gSA voj U;k;ky; dh okn i=koyh okn la0 125 vUrxZr /kkjk 12 tks0p0v0 le>kSrk o vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92 ds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd l0p0v0 U;k;ky; ij izLrqr okn i= ds LrEHk 6 esa ukekUrj.k dk vk/kkj ^^otfj;s ojklr^^ vafdr gS rFkk LrEHk 7 esa oknh@izfroknh dk uke o irk vafdr gSA ftlesa oknh ds :i esa jkts'ojh nsoh o izfroknh ds :i esa Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag dk uke vafdr djds oknh ds :i esa lcls uhps jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok Hkxoku cD'k flag dk uke o fu'kkuh vaxwBk vafdr gSA mDr okn i= ij okn esa fHkUu dye o gLrfyfi esa dzekad 2 Mkydj ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj dk uke LrEHk 8 esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ftlds bl lEcU/k esa Fkkuk iVjaxk ftyk QStkckn esa izkFkfedh ntZ gS ftldh foospuk Jh lquhy dqekj mi fujh{kd }kjk dh tk jgh gS] blfy, bl fcUnq ij vyx ls dksbZ er vafdr fd;k tkuk fof/k laxr ugha izrhr gksrk gS D;ksafd blls iqfyl }kjk dh tk jgh vijkf/kd foospuk izHkkfor gks ldrh gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa fnukad jfgr ,d le>kSrk i= nkf[ky gS ftlesa dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe tehankjh mUewyu ds iwoZ ls gh okfnuh la0 2 ds firk Hkxoku cD'k flag ds uke ntZ jgh gS ftlesa muds firk us iwoZ pdcUnh esa eq0ua0 11@1 rkjh[k QSlyk 11-7-57 ls mlds i{k esa foHkktu dj fn;k tks vkjkth ua0 35] 113] 141] 148@1] 307 o 352 /kkjk 210 ds vUrxZr og lhjnkj ?kksf"kr dj nh x;hA blds ckn Hkh fookfnr uEcjku izfroknh ds uke ntZ pyk vk jgk gS blfy, vkilh le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij pd la0 73 o 89 rFkk pd la0 76 ds izFke o f}rh; pd ij eq0 jkts'ojh nsoh rFkk r`rh; pd ij ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj dk uke ntZ fd;k tk;sA bl lqygukek dks eq0 olhe iz/kku us rLnhd fd;k gS ftl ij l0p0v0 dk lw{e gLrk{kj o fnukad 24-7-92 vafdr gSA blh lqygukek dk mYys[k djds l0p0v0 }kjk le>kSRkk o vkns'k fnukad 24-2-92 ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftl ij eq0 olhe iz/kku dk gLrk{kj rFkk jkts'ojh nsoh o ufUnuh dk vaxwBk fpUg vafdr fd;k x;k gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa vFkok vihyh; dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj }kjk ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; ugha nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS tks muds iwoZ pdcUnh esa fookfnr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k gksus lEcU/kh dFku dks iq"V djrk gksA m0iz0 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dh O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj /kkjk 10 ds izdk'ku ds ckn mRiUu dk;Z dkj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq ukekUrj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS ftlesa fdlh izdkj LoRo dk fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k tkrk gS vfirq LoRo dh ekax ds fy, tks p0v0 dh /kkjk 9d ds vUrxZr vkifRr izLrqr fd;s tkus dk fo/kku gS ijUrq izfri{kh ufUnuh dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ gks bldk u rks i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; gS vkSj u gh muds }kjk ,slk dksbZ dFku izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa muds }kjk vihy Lrj ij nkf[ky Nk;kizfr dkxtkr dk dksbZ ykHk ugha fey ldrk gSA tks0p0v0 dh /kkjk 12 ds vUrxZr ;ksftr iz'uxr okn esa voj U;k;ky; dks dsoy e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag dh ojklr lEcU/kh vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr FkkA rRle; izHkkoh m0iz0 ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 171 mi/kkjk ¼2½ es of.kZr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj vihykfFkZuh jkts'ojh nsoh e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag tks iqatkrh; oa'kt u gksus ds dkj.k dzekad d ij of.kZr ,d ek= fo/kok gksus ds dkj.k ,d vdsyh tk;t okfjl gksrh gSA rRle; m0iz0t0fo0 ,oa Hkw0o0 vf/kfu;e 1950 dh /kkjk 171 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼11½ esa ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds fdlh iwoZorhZ [k.M fofufnZ"V mRrjkf/kdkjh mRrjorhZ [k.Mksa esa fofufnZ"V mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks oftZr dj ysaxs] vFkkZr [k.M ¼1½ ds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks [k.M ¼[k½ ds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa ij vf/keku fn;k tk;sxk vkSj blh izdkj mRrjorhZ dze tkjh jgsxkA izfri{kh ufUnuh nsoh fookfgr iq=h gksus ds ukrs mRrjkf/kdkj dzekad ?k ij gS blfy, mij of.kZr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj og e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag dh tk;t okfjl ugha gks ldrh gS vkSj u gh mUgsa tks0p0v0 dh /kkjk 12 ds rgr dksbZ LoRo iznku fd;k tk ldrk gSA mi;qZDr foospu ds ifjizs{; esa tks0p0v0 dh /kkjk 12 ds vUrxZr l0p0v0 }kjk le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij pd la0 76 ds r`rh; pd ij izfri{kh ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj ds i{k esa ikfjr vkns'k {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs ,oa bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr fopkj.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k [kf.Mr gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk fookfnr Hkwfe ij e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds LFkku ij jkts'ojh nsoh iRuh Hkxoku cD'k flag xzkeoklh dk uke crkSj okfjl ntZ fd;k tkuk fof/k laxr izrhr gksrk gSA rnuqlkj ;g vihy Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vr% mi;qZDr foospuk ds ifjizs{; esa iz'uxr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr le>kSrk@vkns'k fnukad 24-2-92 {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k [kf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA xzke eqjknkckn] ijxuk o rglhy :nkSyh ftyk QStkckn dh pd la0 73] 76 rFkk 89 ls e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag xzkeoklh dk uke [kkfjt djds jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok Hkxoku cD'k flag xzkeoklh dk uke crkSj fof/kd okfjl ntZ gksA i{kdkj lwfpr gksa rFkk vxzsrj dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA^^ 11.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2016, the petitioner instituted a revision being Revision No.859/2016530423000049 (Nandini Devi Versus Rajeshwari Devi), under Section 48 of the Act of 1953. 12. By the impugned order dated 05.04.2019, the opposite party no.1/D.D.C. Ayodhya, rejected the revision and affirmed the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.2/SOC.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2016, the petitioner instituted a revision being Revision No.859/2016530423000049 (Nandini Devi Versus Rajeshwari Devi), under Section 48 of the Act of 1953. 12. By the impugned order dated 05.04.2019, the opposite party no.1/D.D.C. Ayodhya, rejected the revision and affirmed the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.2/SOC. The relevant portion of order dated 05.04.2019, reads as under:- ^^fuxjkuhdrhZ dh vksj ls IkzLrqr fd;s x;s rdksZ esa eq[; #i ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd jkts'ojh nsoh us fnukad 15-11-16 dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djds dgk gS fd eSus dksbZ vihy nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA fdlh vU; O;fDr us vihy nkf[ky fd;k gSA tc uksfVl izkIr gq;h rc mDr okn dh tkudkjh gq;h gSA budk rdZ gS fd okn la[;k 125 esa /kkjk&12 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 24-02-92 dks le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA HkxokucD'k e`rd dh ojklr dk fookn FkkA budk rdZ gS fd izFke pdz pdcUnh ds [kkrk la[;k 55 Hkxoku cD'k ds uke [kkrk FkkA blh [kkrs ij vkns'k fnukad 11-07-57 ds }kjk ufUnuh nsoh dk uke crkSj lhjnkj vafdr gksus dk vkns'k gqvk gS fdUrq bldk vuqikyu vfxze vfHkys[kksa esa ugh gqvk Fkk fdUrq mldk pd vyx cuk gqvk FkkA xyrh ls vfxze vfHkys[kksa esa HkxokucD'k dk uke ntZ gks x;k FkkA fnukad 03-12-91 dks Hkxoku cD'k flag us viathd`r olh;rukek viuh IkRuh ds i{k esa rgjhj fd;k rFkk mYYks[k fd;k x;k fd bUgsa cspus o _`.k ysus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxk rFkk jkts'ojh nsoh dh e`R;q ds ckn mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh ufUnuh nsoh gksxhaA fnukad 04-12-91 dks HkxokucD'k ej x;sA fnukad 20-01-92 dks jkts'ojh nsoh o ufUnuh nsoh ds e/; lqyg gq;hA blh lqygukesa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 24-02-92 dks vkns'k ikfjr gqvk gSA budk rdZ gS fd vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92 dh tkudkjh jkts'ojh nsoh dks gS ,oa mlds }kjk o"kZ 1998 esa cSukek fd;k x;k gSA jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk cUnkscLRk vf/kdkjh pdCkUnh ds le{k dksbZ vihy lafLFkr ugha dh x;h gSA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd okn /kkjk&9d¼2½ ds vUrxZr gksuk pkfg, Fkk tks /kkjk&12 esa gqvk gSA ;g vf/koDrk dh lykg ij gSA budk rdZ gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk xyr #i ls vihy dks Lohdkj djds okn Hkwfe ij jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke vafdr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tk; rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fujLr djds i=koyh iqu% xq.knks"k ij fuLrkj.k gsrq vihyh; U;k;ky; dks izfriszf"kr dh tk;A budh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkj0ts0 1991 ist 335 dh vksj vkd`"V djk;k x;k gSA mRrjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s rdksZ esa eq[; #i ls dgk x;k gS fd fnukad 24-02-92 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 esa jkts'ojh dk uke vk;kA blh vkns'k esa tkylkth dh x;hA blh tkylkth ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk&33@39 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e esa okn nkf[ky fd;k x;kA ftl ij mi ftykf/kdkjh us vkns'k fnukad 31-12-2014 ikfjr fd;k gSA budk rdZ gS fd mlds fo#) izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;kA vkns'k LFkfxr gqvk rFkk [kkfjt gks x;kA iquZLFkkiu izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k tks py jgk gSA fnukad 29-4-2015 dks vihy nkf[ky gq;h gSA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd 1957 esa ufUnuh dh vk;q 07 o"kZ Fkh blfy, brus de mez esa lhjnkj dSls gq;h\A tks le>kSrk nkf[ky gqvk mls cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds le{k ugh j[kk x;kA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd pdcUnh esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu gsrq fu;e 109 esa dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h] cfYd pdcUnh ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu gsrq /kkjk&33@39 ds vUrxZr okn izLrqr fd;k x;kA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd o"kZ 1957 esa ;fn dksbZ vkns'k Fkk rks f}rh; pdz pdcUnh esa mls D;ks ugha mBk;k x;kA dksbZ Hkh iathd`r vfHkys[k ugha gSA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd Hkxoku cD'k flag e`rd ds LFkku ij mudh fo/kok jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlh vuqlkj vfHkys[k Hkh fufeZr gq;s FksA ufUnuh nsoh }kjk vfHkys[kksa esa tkylkth djkdj viuk uke vafdr djk fy;k x;k Fkk ftls vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dwVjpuk ds vk/kkj ij vafdr ikrs gq, fujLr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk e`rd Hkxoku flag ds LFkku ij mudh fo/kok jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke mfpr #i ls vafdr fd;k x;k gSA vihyh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa dksbZ =qfV ugha gS fuxjkuh fujk/kkj gS ,oa fujLr dh tk;A eSusa voj U;k;ky;ks dh i=koyh ij miyC/k vkns'k] lHkh laxr lk{;ks dk fof/k ds vkyksd esa fogaxe ifj'khyu ,oa ijh{k.k fd;kA blds vfrfjDRk nksuks i{kksa ds vf/koDrk }; dh rdZiw.kZ cgl lqukA Li"V gS fd xzke eqjknkckn esa pdcUnh izfdz;k izpfyr jgrs gh [kkrsnkj HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag dk nsgkUr gks x;kA jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk /kkjk&12 ds vUrxZr pd la[;k 89] 73] o 76 ij e`rd Hkxoku flag ds LFkku ij fo/kok ds #i esa uke vafdr djus gsrq ukekUrj.k okn izLrqr fd;k x;k ,oa LrEHk 06 esa ukekUrj.k dk vk/kkj ctfj;s ojklr vafdr gSA LRkEHk 7 esa oknh o izfroknh dk uke o irk vafdr gSA oknh ds #i esa jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok HkxokucD'k flag rFkk izfroknh ds #i esa HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag vafdr gS rFkk blds uhps jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok HkxokucD'k flag dk uke o fu'kkuh vaxwBk yxk gSA mDr okn i= ij fo'ks"k fooj.k ds dkye esa ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj fuoklh xzke eqjknkckn ijxuk o rglhy #nkSyh ftyk ckjkcadh fHkUu dye ls fHkUu ys[k esa fy[kk x;k gS ,oa jkts'ojh ds uke ds Åij dks"Bd cukdj ,d ,oa ufUnuh ds uke ds Åij dks"Bd cukdj nks fy[kk x;k gSA bl dwVjpuk ds lEcU/k esa Fkkuk iVjaxk ftyk QStkckn esa izkFkfedh ntZ gS] ftldh foospuk dh tk jgh gSA bl fcUnq ij vyx ls dksbZ er O;Dr fd;k tkuk fof/klaxr ugh gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa fnukad jfgr ,d le>kSrk i= nkf[ky gS ftlesa mYys[k gS fd eqdnek ua0 11@1 rkjh[k QSlyk 11-07-57 ds }kjk HkXkokucD'k flag ds uke vafdr Hkwfe] Hkwfe la[;k 35] 113] 141] 148@1] 307 o 352 ufUnuh nsoh lhjnkj ?kksf"kr dj nh x;hA blds ckn Hkh fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknh dk uke ntZ pyk vk jgk gSA blfy, vkilh le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij pd la[;k 73]89 rFkk 76 ds izFke o f}rh; pd ij eq0 jkts'ojh nsoh rFkk r`rh; pd ij ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj dk uke ntZ fd;k tk;A bl lqygukek dks eks0 olhe iz/kku us rLnhd fd;k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS tks iwoZ pdcUnh esa fookfnr Hkwfe ds lECkU/k esa ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'k dh iqf"V djrk gksA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd pdCkUnh fdz;kvks ds vUrxZr xzke esa /kkjk&10 ds izdk'ku ds i'pkr mRiUu okn dkj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq m0iz0 tksr pdCkUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&12 dh O;oLFkk gSA bl izdj.k esa fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk izFke pdz pdCkUnh ds ftl vkns'k ds vuqlkj lqygukes ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k dk gksuk dgk x;k gS] mDr dk;Zokgh gsrq fu;ekuqlkj xzke esa /kkjk&9 ds izdk'ku ds iwoZ lR;kiu [krkSuh ds le; RkRlEcU/kh fookn fufeZr gksuk pkfg, Fkk ,oa /kkjk&9 ds izdk'ku ds mijkUr RkRlEcU/kh vkifRRk Hkh izLrqr gksdj fu;ekuqlkj lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk xq.knks"k ij fuLrkj.k gksuk pkfg, FkkA bl izdj.k esa xzke esa lR;kiu [krkSuh ds le; ,slk dksbZ ruktk fufeZr gqvk vkSj u gh okn Hkwfe ij fuxjkuhdrhZ ds dCts dk gh dksbZ ruktk fufeZr gqvk vkSj u] gh fuxjkuhdrhZ dh vksj ls izFke pdz pdCkUnh esa ikfjr vkns'k dk vuqikyu fu;e 109 ds vUrxZr djk;k x;k vkSj u gh f}rh; pdz pdcUnh izkjEHk gksus ds mijkUr /kkjk&9 ds vURkxZr ,slk dksbZ vkifRr gh izLrqr dh x;hA i=koyh ij miyC/k f}rh; pdz pdcUnh ds tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds nsgkUr ds mijkUr jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk /kkjk&12 ds vUrxZr izLrqr ukekUrj.k okn esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqlkj pd la[;k 89] 73] o 76 ds lHkh pdks ls fufeZr tksr pdCkUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 esa HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds LFkku ij Jherh jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok HkxokucD'k flag xzkeoklh dk uke vafdr gqvk gSA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ;fn /kkjk&12 ds vUrxZr izLrqr okn la[;k 125 esa ikfjr lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92 ds }kjk pd la[;k 73] 89] o 76 ds lsDVj ua0 02 izFke pd o lsDVj uEcj 05 f}rh; pd ij eq0 jkts'ojh nsoh csok Hkxoku cD'k flag ,oa dzekad 76 ds lsDVj ua0 6 ds r`rh; pd ij Jherh ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj flag dk uke vafdr gqvk gksrk rks rRle; xzke ds vfUre vfHkys[k fufeZr djrs le; tksr pdCkUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 ij vkns'k fnuakd 24-02-92 ds vuqikyu esa pd la[;k 76 ds r`rh; pd xkVk la[;k 71fe0 vkfn dqy 06 fdrk {ks=Qy 2-929 gs0 ls fufeZr uohu xkVk la[;k 66@2-929gs0 Jherh jkts'ojh nsoh csok HkxokucD'k flag ds uke vafdr u gksdj Jherh ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj flag ds uke vafdr gqvk gksrk fdUrq uohu xkVk la[;k 66@2-929gs0 tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&45 dh [kkrk la[;k 100 esa pd la[;k 76 izFke o f}rh; ds uohu xkVk la[;k 47 o 49 ds lkFk jkts'ojh nsoh dk vdsys uke vafdr gksuk LIk"V djrk gS fd lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk&12 ds vUrxZr e`rd HkxokucD'k flag ds LFkku ij ojklru mudh fo/kok Jherh jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke gh vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlh vuqlkj xzke ds vfUre vfHkys[k fufeZr fd;s x;s FksA lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh dh okn i=koyh la[;k 125 vUrXkZr /kkjk&12 ds lkFk layXu ukekUrj.k okn i= esa fo'ks"k fooj.k ds LrEHk 8 esa fHkUu dye o fHkUu ys[k ls ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj cढ+k;k tkuk rFkk i=koyh esa laf/ki= laYkXu djds mlds vk/kkj ij vkns'k fufeZr fd;k tkuk Li"V djrk gS fd dwVjpuk ds vk/kkj ij iwoZ ikfjr vkns'k gVkdj uohu vkns'k j[kk x;k gS D;ksafd ;fn oLrqr% ;gh vkns'k ikfjr gqvk gksrk rks xzke ds vfUre vfHkys[k blh vuqlkj fufeZr fd;s tkrsA ;gkW ij ;g Hkh LIk"V djuk lehphu gS fd pdCkUnh izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ;fn tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=& 41 o 45 esa fdz;kfUor djus ls NwV Hkh x;k gS rks Hkh bldk fdz;kUo;u yS.M jsosU;w ,sDV dh /kkjk&33@39 esa ugha gks ldrkA ,sls vkns'kksa dks izFker% tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&48¼3½ esa ijhf{kr djus ds ckn fu;e 109,¼1½ esa vuqikfyr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A yS.M jsosU;w ,sDV dh /kkjk&33@39 dh ifjf/k ek= [krkSuh dh fyfidh; ,ao vadxf.krh; =qfV dks 'kq) djus dh gS tks /kkjk&52¼1½ tksr pdCkUnh vf/kfu;e esa iz[;kiu ds ckn rglhy esa gks tkrh gSA ,d egRoiw.kZ fcUnq ;g Hkh gS fd fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa mRrjkf/kdkj dk lkekU; dze ifjofrZr ugha gksrk gSA lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh ds le{k HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds mRrjkf/kdkj ds fo"k; esa izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;kA tc HkxokucD'k flag dh fo/kok jkts'ojh nsoh thfor Fkh rks ufUnuh nsoh Hkh HkxokucD'k flag dh mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh jkts'ojh nsoh ¼eka½ ds thoudky esa dSls gks ldrh Fkh\A bl fo"k; esa Hkys gh dksbZ laf/k ekW&csVh esa gq;h gks] ijUrq dksbZ Hkh laf/k izpfyr fof/k ds fo#) Lohdkj ugha gks ldrh gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd jkts'ojh nsoh o HkxokucD'k flag dh rhu iqf=;kW gSA lHkh vius&vius i{k esa olh;rukek dh ckr djrh gSA pwWfd xzke esa /kkjk&52¼1½ dk iz[;kiu gks pqdk gS] blfy, okn dkj.k vc pdcUnh U;k;ky;ksa dh ifjf/k esa ugha gSA bldk lgh ijh{k.k jktLo U;k;ky; ls gh gks ldrk gSA bruk vo'; gS fd tc HkxokucD'k flag ds }kjk muds thoudky esa gh fu"ikfnr ,d rFkkdfFkr viathd`r olh;rukek fnukad 03-12-91 Fkk] ftlesa ;g Li"V Fkk fd jkts'ojh nsoh] HkxokucD'k flag ls izkIr Hkwfe dks fodz; ugha dj ldrh vkSj jkts'ojh nsoh dh e`R;q ds ckn mudh ek= ,d iq=h ufUnuh nsoh gh mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh gksxha rc jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk o"kZ 1998 esa Hkwfe fodz; djus ij ufUnuh nsoh }kjk fojks/k D;ksa ugha fd;k x;k\A nwljs ;g fd tc jkts'ojh nsoh ds ckn mDRk olh;rukesa ds vk/kkj ij ufUnuh nsoh mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh curh] rc HkxokucD'k dh e`R;q ds ckn mUgsa jkts'ojh nsoh ds lkFk gh ,d va'k ij lgHkwfe/kj cuus dh D;k vko';drk Fkh\A fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lqcq) vf/koDRkk bu iz'uksa dk dksbZ larks"ktud mRrj ugha ns ik;sA tgkW rd fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lqcq) vf/koDrk dk ;g dFku fd jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk dksbZ vihy ugha dh x;h] Lohdku ugha fd;k tk ldrk] D;ksafd vihyh; Lrj ij nks ckn ufUnuh nsoh us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk lafLFkr dh FkhA ;kfpdk la[;k 17883@2016 Jherh ufUnuh nsoh cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 QStkckn o vU; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vkns'k fnukad 19-08-2016 esa Li"V dj fn;k gS fd cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okn dk fUkLrkj.k xq.knks"k ij djsxsaA mUgsa okn dks fuLrkfjr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj izkIr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk izorhZ va'k fuEUkor~ gS %& "Without commenting anything on the merit of the case, this court directs that the matter pending before the settlement officer of Consolidation, Faizabad shall be decided by settlement officer of Consolidation Faizabad on merit also.
However, so far the jurisdiction is concerned, the settlement officer of consolidation shall have all the jurisdiction to decide the matter.'' tc vihyh; Lrj ij gh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us izdj.k dks xq.knks"k ij fuLrkfjr djus dk vkns'k ns fn;k vkSj ;g Hkh Li"V dj fn;k fd cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh dks bl okn dks fUkLrkfjr djus dk iw.kZ {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gS] rc fuxjkuh Lrj ij ;g rduhdh fcUnq mBkuk fd vihy jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk ugh nkf[ky Fkh vFkok vihy vfr'k; dkyckf/kr Fkh] Lohdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrkA bl izdkj fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lqcq) vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr fof/k O;oLFkk vkj0ts0 1991 ist 335 bl izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gSA izdj.k esa eq[; fcUnq lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92 esa dh x;h dwVjpuk ls FkkA bl ij Åij foosfpr fd, va'k ds vuqlkj u rks lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dks laf/k i= ds vk/kkj ij ekrk ds thfor jgrs] firk fd Hkw&lEifr esa] rhu esa ls ek= ,d iq=h ufUnuh nsoh dk uke vafdr djus dk vf/kdkj gh Fkk vkSj u] gh ,sls fdlh vkns'k dk fdz;kUo;u yS.M jsosU;w ,sDV dh /kkjk&33@39 esa gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA D;ksafd pdcUnh esa tks vfUre vfHkys[k fufeZr gq,] mlesa HkxokucD'k iq= Naxk flag ds LFkku ij ek= mudh fo/kok iRuh jkts'ojh nsoh iRuh HkxokucD'k dk gh uke vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k] blls Li"V gS fd lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k ek= mrus va'k rd gh FkkA dksbZ dkj.k fo|eku ugha gS fd vk/ks vkns'k dk ikyu gks vkSj vk/kk NwV tk;A ,slh fLFkfr esa] eSa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds vkns'k esa fdlh izdkj dh =qfV ;k vfu;ferrk ugha ikrk gwWA fuxjkuh cyghu gS vkSj fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g fuxjkuh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh vxzsrj dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr jktLo vfHkys[kky; esa lafpr gksA^^ 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order(s) stated that in view of recitals of the 'Will' dated 03.12.1991, the testator Raj Bux Singh, has provided life time interest to the Rajeshwari Devi and as such the petitioner is entitled to rights over the property in dispute i.e. Gata No. 66, detailed above on the basis of 'Will' dated 03.12.1991 and also the compromise filed before ACO, the basis of order dated 24.02.1992 of A.C.O. 14.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the side opposite submitted that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected and the present petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons that 'Will' dated 03.12.1991 the basis of claim of the petitioner, was not proved before the authorities under the Act of 1953 and this is undisputed fact and also that alleged compromise was in violation of law. 15. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records. 16. So far as the claim of the petitioner based upon the undisputed 'Will' dated 03.12.1991 is concerned, the same has no force. It is for the reason that undisputedly the unregistered 'Will' dated 03.12.1991, the basis of the claim of the petitioner, was not proved, as per law, before the authorities under the Act of 1953. 17. In regard to claim based upon the compromise, this Court finds it appropriate to refer some pronouncements. 18. In the case of Shiv Prasad Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and Ors. reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 1485, this Court observed as under:- "7. On the basis of pleadings and arguments of the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is whether under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act a compromise could be entered into between the parties as contemplated under the C.P.C. at any stage in proceedings arising out of Section 9-A(2)/Section 11/Section 12/Section 21/Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, secondly, whether title of the parties in the land which is creation of a statute could be determined on the basis of a compromise for exclusive title or for determination of share in a joint holding and, thirdly, whether a person could be declared as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami on the basis of a compromise in the proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or any other proceeding under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act without any title in law. 8. Before delving into this question, I feel called to advert to certain provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
8. Before delving into this question, I feel called to advert to certain provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 3(4-C) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines land, same is being reproduced as under:— “3(4-C) ‘Holding’ means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders.” Section 3(11) defines tenure-holder which runs as under:— “3(11) ‘Tenure-holder’ means a (bhumidhar with transferable rights or bhumidhar with non-transferable rights), and includes— (a) an asami, (b) a Government lessee or Government grantee, or (c) a co-operative farming society satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed.” 9. Definition in Section 3(12) also makes it clear that “Words and expressions not defined in this Act but (used or) defined in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, but (used or) in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Act in which they are so (used or) defined.” 10. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the procedure prescribed is that after spot verification, as required under the Act and the Rules, Consolidation Officer shall prepare a statement of principles under Section 8-A as well as statement under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on verification of map and land record, thereafter, record shall be published and the statement showing the mistakes (undisputed cases of succession) and disputes discovered during the test and verification of the record of right during the course of the field to field portal shall be published in the village. Any objection to that shall be filed on publication of record under Section. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before Assistant Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness and nature of the entries in the record or in the extract furnished therefrom or in the statement of principles, or the need for partition.
Any objection to that shall be filed on publication of record under Section. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before Assistant Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness and nature of the entries in the record or in the extract furnished therefrom or in the statement of principles, or the need for partition. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the only provision under which a compromise, by way of conciliation, could be entered into is Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules which is being reproduced below:— “25-A. Sections 9-A, 9-B and 9-C.—(1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, as far as possible, deal with all the objections filed by a tenure-holder with regard to matters referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A and sub-section(1) of Section 9-B in village itself. In decided dispute on the basis of conciliation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A, he shall record the terms of conciliation in the presence of at least two members of the Consolidation Committee of the village. These terms shall then be read over to the parties concerned and their signatures or thumb impressions obtained. The members of the Consolidation Committee present shall also sign the terms of conciliation specifying the precise entries to be made in the records. Details of the operative part of the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be noted in the Misiband register. No ex-parte order or orders in default shall be passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. (2) In all cases in which the Assistant Consolidation Officer sends a report, under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 9-A, or sub-section (1) of Section 9-B to the Consolidation Officer for disposal, he may fix a date and place for the disposal of the cases by the Consolidation Officer and communicate the same to the parties present before him and issue notices in C.H. Form 6-A to the parties not so present. The report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in such cases clearly brings out the points in dispute between the parties and the efforts made by him to reconcile them.” 11.
The report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in such cases clearly brings out the points in dispute between the parties and the efforts made by him to reconcile them.” 11. The quintessence of the above rule i.e. Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules at the risk of repetition is that at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer conciliation may take place in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A and sub-section (1) of Section 9-B and Assistant Consolidation Officer shall record terms of conciliation in the presence of two members of Consolidation Committee. The terms shall then be read over to the parties concerned and their signature and thumb impression shall be obtained. The members of Consolidation Committee shall also sign the terms of conciliation and then Assistant Consolidation Officer shall pass orders deciding dispute in terms of conciliation. The details of the operative part of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, it is further envisaged in the Rule, shall be noted in the Misiband Register. No ex parte order or order in default shall be passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. All disputed cases received from the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be entered in the Misiband Register in the office of the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in issue and take evidence and then decide the dispute. In the case of partition in case any objection is filed, the Consolidation Officer shall proceed with the partition, only after recording reasons in writing if he considers it in the interest of better consolidation. 12. There is no provision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or Rules framed thereunder by which provisions of O. XXIII, R. 3 of C.P.C. have been made applicable to consolidation proceedings. The intention of the Legislature while enacting U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was development of agriculture land as is eloquent from the preamble of the Act. 13. As stated supra, the only provision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder for conciliation is Rule 25-A. Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, as discussed above, provides that a person could get his rights settled through conciliation in case his rights are recognised by a statute.
13. As stated supra, the only provision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder for conciliation is Rule 25-A. Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, as discussed above, provides that a person could get his rights settled through conciliation in case his rights are recognised by a statute. A person cannot get any right settled or declared in conciliation proceedings under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Rules if his rights are not recognised by statute. The intention of Legislature while framing Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules clearly is that the parties may not be drawn into avoidable and unnecessary litigation relating to their legitimate rights created under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and for correction of the entries in the revenue records. Intention of Legislature while enacting Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules is clear and a person cannot get any right under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules which was never created and recognised by the statute under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on abolition of Zamindari or under any other subsequent amendment of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. A tenure-holder could get his legitimate right of co-tenancy in case land was acquired by common ancestors or jointly by way of reconciliation. Similarly, if an entry in the joint name of a number of tenure-holders is incorrectly recorded, parties may get the entry corrected by conciliation under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules setting the matter/rights by mutual partition or by recognising family settlement already taken place and already acted upon by the parties to get the entry corrected accordingly. But a tenure-holder cannot get any exclusive right in a proceeding under Section 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules unless such Rules are recognised by statute. 14. In 1976 (2) R.D. 69, Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, it has been held by the Supreme Court that family arrangements acted upon by parties could be recognised by the consolidation authorities as family arrangement operates as estoppels against parties having taken benefit thereunder. 15.
14. In 1976 (2) R.D. 69, Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, it has been held by the Supreme Court that family arrangements acted upon by parties could be recognised by the consolidation authorities as family arrangement operates as estoppels against parties having taken benefit thereunder. 15. There is no provision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for compromise at any of the stage of consolidation proceedings either under Sections 9-A, 9-B, 11, 20, 21 or Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Though under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the provisions of C.P.C. are made applicable by virtue of Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and in appropriate cases in the suits arising out of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, a compromise could be entered into. 16. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, provisions of C.P.C. are not made applicable like Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and as such there is no provision of compromise under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but in order to secure interest of justice and cut short litigation, rights recognised by statute may be settled by mutual agreement before any Consolidation authority other than Assistant Consolidation Officer. Procedure prescribed under the C.P.C. are not applicable to consolidation proceedings, but if an agreement was entered into which was not contrary to the rights conferred by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, such agreement in which all the parties including State joined may be legitimately relied upon by the Consolidation authorities. Thus, a tenure-holder who did not have any right under the statute could not get any right by way of compromise or settlement. 17. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. is being reproduced below:— “3.
Thus, a tenure-holder who did not have any right under the statute could not get any right by way of compromise or settlement. 17. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. is being reproduced below:— “3. Compromise of suit.— Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise (in writing and signed by the parties), or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith (so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit). (Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reason to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.) Explanation— An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.)” 18. Since right of a tenure-holder in land is a creation of statute under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and these rights are declared or adjudicated by the Consolidation authorities for the area where the notification under S. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is made, only such statutory rights already in existence in favour of a person could be recognised through a lawful agreement or compromise in consolidation proceedings. A right which does not accrue to a person under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or any other provision of law could not be recognised by any agreement or compromise in the consolidation proceedings. Thus, it is held that if a person had no right under the statute any such right could not be recognised or admitted by a compromise or a new right could not be created through compromise or conciliation. 19.
Thus, it is held that if a person had no right under the statute any such right could not be recognised or admitted by a compromise or a new right could not be created through compromise or conciliation. 19. It is clear from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1790 , Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. The Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad that Bhumidhari rights in all the estates vested in the State is a new statutory right under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced below:— “(7)……………… We are of opinion that the proprietary rights in sir and khudkashat land and in grove land have vested in the State and what is conferred on the intermediary by S. 18 is a new right altogether which he never had and which could not therefore have been mortgaged in 1914.” 20. In view of the discussions made above, as in the present case there is no such family arrangement acted upon between the parties in which parties have taken benefit as claimed by the petitioners, the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly set aside the compromise and orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record in holding that the compromise relied upon by petitioner was not lawful. Impugned order was rightly passed in accordance with law. The questions framed above are decided accordingly." 19. In the cases of Babu vs. Abdul Shakoor, MANU/UP/1922/2018 : 2018 (139) R.D. 36 and Smt. Basmati vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, MANU/UP/4072/2019 : 2019 (145) RD 832, this Court observed that compromise will not be treated valid, in case, it takes place in violation of provisions under Rule 25-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules. 20. In the case of Budh Lal and Anr. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors., MANU/UP/0688/1982 : 1982 AWC 447 (DB), this Court observed that co-option under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not permissible. 21. Considered the observations made in the above referred judgments and the compromise on record, annexed as annexure no.
20. In the case of Budh Lal and Anr. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors., MANU/UP/0688/1982 : 1982 AWC 447 (DB), this Court observed that co-option under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not permissible. 21. Considered the observations made in the above referred judgments and the compromise on record, annexed as annexure no. 6, which does not bear signature of members of Consolidation Committee though the same is required as per Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954 also that a tenure holder/person could get his/her rights settled by way of conciliation in case his/her rights are recognized by a statute and cannot get any right settled or declared in conciliation proceedings under Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1954, if his/her rights are not recognized by statute and Section 171(2) of the Act of 1950. 22. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds no force in claim of the petitioner based upon the compromise. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.