A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ramji Singh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3, Sri D.D. Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha-respondent No. 14, and Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 13. The respondent Nos. 15 to 17 are the heirs of the vendor of the contesting parties. They have not put in contest as the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and the contesting respondents, which forms part of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 14.2.2011.
(2.) WHETHER the Board of Revenue, in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with the llnd Schedule appended thereto and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, could refuse to record the compromise as directed by this Court and carve out a new case for disposing of the second appeal under the impugned order dated 2.6.2011 giving rise to this petition, is the short question which has to be answered by this Court. The said issue has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties which in the opinion of the Court does not require any exchange of affidavits as the entire material is already available on record. This matter arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Act') relating to two sale deeds dated 23.5.1978 and 8.6.1978 whereby the vendor had sold his entire holding of 21 Big has and 10 Biswas of grove land. The suit was contested by the parties and ultimately the matter reached the Board of Revenue in a second appeal. The Board decided the matter against the petitioners, vide judgment dated 30.5.2005. The said judgment passed in second appeal was assailed in Writ Petition No. 45849 of 2005. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 45849 of 2005, a compromise application was filed by the contesting parties and the said writ petition was disposed of on 14.2.2011 setting aside the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30.5.2005 with a clear direction to decide the second appeal in terms of the compromise. The judgement of this Court passed in the said writ petition is extracted here in under: "Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J. This is an application jointly filed by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent with a prayer to allow the writ petition in terms of the compromise, after setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 30.5.2005 in Second Appeal No. 22/2001-2002. The application is supported by an affidavit of large number of parties who are said to be the petitioners and the contesting respondents. Upon a query being made to the counsel for the parties, this is not a case where the parties want that the order of Board of Revenue be set aside and that of the lower appellate Court be maintained. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that they want certain modifications in the order of lower appellate Court also. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the matter may be sent back to the Board of Revenue to decide the second appeal afresh in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 30.5.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 22/2001-2002 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Board of Revenue to decide the said second appeal afresh in the light of the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. As the various affidavits of the parties have been filed before this Court alongwith this compromise application, it would be appropriate that counsel for the parties may obtain certified copy of the compromise application and the affidavit and file it before the Board of Revenue for appropriate orders being passed in the second appeal. The writ petition stands allowed with the observations as made above. The parties shall approach before the Board of Revenue within a month from today and thereafter Board of Revenue shall make an endeavour to decide the second appeal afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order."
(3.) AN application, captioned as a compromise application dated 13.1.2011 supported by affidavits dated 26.12.2010, (ANnexure-23 to the petition) was filed before the Board of Revenue and was registered as Misc. Compromise Application No. 2. Strangely enough in a very peculiar manner while passing the impugned order dated 2.6.2011, the learned Member, Board of Revenue began by reciting that the matter was not only heard between the parties but was also decided in the presence of few members of the Bar. It is not understandable as to why such hearing was required to be given by the learned Member, Board of Revenue when there was a clear direction of the High Court to decide the matter in terms of the compromise itself. The learned Member, Board of Revenue instead of deciding the matter as per the judgment of this Court, in paragraph 7 of the impugned order states as under: "7. It goes without saying that Hon'ble High Court expects and requires of the Board of Revenue to undertake due application of mind while passing appropriate orders in the light of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court does not expect or require the Board of Revenue to accept the compromise filed by the parties in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind and without due examination of the law applicable." The aforesaid recital in the order of the learned Member-Sri Dinesh Singh is contrary to law and shows scant respect to the order of the High Court. In essence, the aforesaid recital is a clear defiance of the order of the High Court and is nothing short of interfering with the course of justice. The High Court had clearly directed that the second appeal has to be decided in terms of the compromise and not otherwise.;