Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at length and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel, alongwith Sri Pankaj Govil for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
(2.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the orders passed by the consolidation authorities emanating from an order dated 8.12.1985 of the Consolidation Officer as affirmed in Appeal on 12.10.2009 and in the revision on 27.6.2011. The factual matrix as disclosed in the writ petition is that the recorded tenure holder was one Mr. Aliya. His son is Sabir. After the death of Aliya, it is alleged that registered sale-deeds were executed by Sri Sabir on 6.6.1985 in favour of the contesting respondent. Acompromise was entered before the Assistant Consolidation Officer which included the plots which were subject matter of the sale-deeds and another plot No. 819 which is alleged to have been claimed on the basis of adverse possession by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The order of compromise was questioned by Sabir himself by filing an Appeal after 17 years on 22.6.2002. Sri Sabir during the pending of the Appeal died on 23.8.2006, and the petitioners' claim to be the subsequent purchasers from Sabir in relation to the same plots which were subject matter of the said compromise. The Appeal filed by Sabir was dismissed as time barred on 12.10.2009. In between a writ petition was allegedly filed against the said order dated 12.10.2009 which was dismissed but the same was recalled and the writ petition was allowed directing the appellate authority to proceed to decide the matter afresh.
(3.) THE Appeal was dismissed against which a revision was preferred by the petitioners which has now been dismissed by the impugned order hence this writ petition. Sri R.C. Singh submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has gone into the merits of the matter instead of only upholding the appellate order on the ground of limitation, has failed to advert to the issues raised by Sabir and subsequently by the petitioners in the revision after the death of Sabir. He contends that the very basis of the compromise had been challenged in Appeal and that the entire order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.12.1985 had been questioned. He submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, was under an obligation to have gone into the correctness or otherwise of the said order of compromise dated 5.12.1985 and instead he has read it as an evidence against the petitioners. He further contends that there was no permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation for executing the sale-deed in favour of the respondent by Sabir which is a statutory violation, and even otherwise if the date of death of Sri Aliya is 15.12.1985 then there was no occasion for his son Sabir to have executed the sale-deed prior to his death.;