SITA RAM AND ORS. Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION PRATAPGARH AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-381
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 19,2010

Sita Ram And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Pratapgarh And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. I.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Ravi Shanker Somvanshi, learned counsel for opposite parties 10 to 12. The petitioners are aggrieved with order dated 5.1.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh on the basis of compromise as well as order dated 29.1.2010 passed on the application for restoration of the case which has been rejected being time barred.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners never entered into any compromise nor the same was verified by their counsel. Further they never made their signatures. In support of their submissions, they have filed affidavits of the petitioners/counsel and to compare their signatures with the notice shown as served upon them they have also filed the service of notice, accordingly they have tried to establish the compromise as forged one. Admittedly they moved an application for restoration of the case after about 23 years from the date of order passed on the alleged compromise i.e. 5.1.1984, but according to them as an when they came to know regarding the said forged compromise, they immediately moved an application for restoration and thus the order passed on the forged compromise is always nullity and it is open to the petitioners to challenge the same at any stage.
(3.) In support of his contentions, he cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Shanker Somvanshi, learned counsel for opposite party 10 to 12 submits that the consolidation operation has already been de-notified in 1982 therefore the petitioners have no right to move an application for restoration of the case before the court of consolidation as the petitioners can avail the remedy else where as is available but not before the court of consolidation. In support of his contentions he cited the decision of this court rendered in the case of Nanhki v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others RD 1995, 264.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.