- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2-5-1981 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the revision filed by the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, hereinafter referred to as 'the contesting respondents'. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that khata Nos. 85-A, 85-B and 110 of village Tilauli, District Deoria, hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute', were recorded in the name of the petitioners in the basic year. Radha Kishun, father of contesting respondents, filed an objection against the basic year entry and prayed for expunction of the same. It was pleaded that originally the land was the sir and khudkasht of Ram Jatan, who executed a gift-deed dated 9-6-1931 in favour of the objector (father of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4) and one Thakur. The validity of the said gift deed was challenged by the petitioners in Original Suit No. 306 of 1932, which was filed for cancellation of the said gift deed and declaration in the Civil Court. The said suit was ultimately decided in terms of a compromise decree dated 18-11-1932. In the said suit, the land in dispute was held to be the sir and khudkasht of Radha Kishun, father of contesting respondents. After the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Radha Kishun became bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Ram Jatan is stated to have executed some sale deed after the aforesaid decree, which was void ab-initio as he had no right to execute the same. The validity of the gift deed was also upheld in Suit No. 672 of 1938. The contesting respondents have been in cultivative possession of the land in dispute and the petitioners or their father had no concern with the same. The basic year entry of the name of Sita Ram and Bhairo was, thus, liable to be expunged. The objection filed by the father of the contesting respondents was contested by the petitioners. They have pleaded that the gift deed dated 9-6-1931 was fraudulent and illegal. Ram Jatan on 1-10-1964 executed a sale-deed in favour of Sita Ram and Bhairo in respect of the land in dispute, on the basis of which they were in possession over the same. It was also pleaded that the compromise decree, referred to above, did not affect the rights of Ram Jatan in the suits and that in the suits, referred to above, the rights of parties were not decided. It was also urged that the petitioners were bona-fide purchasers for value without notice. The objection filed by the father of the contesting respondents was, thus, liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the aforesaid objection, two cases were registered by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer framed necessary issues in the cases. Parties in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after going through the evidence on the record dismissed the objection filed by Radha Kishun by his judgment and order dated 13-6-1976. It would not be out of place to state that during the pendency of the case before the Consolidation Officer, Radha Kishun died and in his place his sons, contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were substituted. The contesting respondents, thereafter, challenging the validity of the order of the Consolidation Officer, filed appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties also dismissed the appeals by his judgment and order dated 21-9-1977. The contesting respondents, thereafter filed revisions under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', which ultimately came to the file of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria, the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 reversed the findings recorded by the authorities below and relying upon the compromise decree, referred to above, allowed the revisions by his judgment and order dated 2-5-1981, except two plots in respect of which the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh, hence the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in dispute continuously and contesting respondents have got no concern with the same. It was also urged that the gift deed referred to and relied by the respondents was void and the same was, therefore, liable to be ignored. The view taken to the contrary by the respondent No. 1 relying upon the compromise decree and deciding the case on the basis of the same was manifestly erroneous and illegal. The impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the validity of the orders passed by the Respondent No. 1. It was urged that the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is concluded by findings of fact, which are based on relevant evidence on the record. The Respondent No. 1, according to him, was right in relying upon the compromise decree and deciding the case on the basis of the same. It was also submitted that the compromise decree was passed validly as in the Civil Court validity of the gift deed was not challenged by the petitioners. On the other hand, they entered into a compromise with contesting respondents. Therefore, they are now stopped from challenging the validity of the gift deed on any ground.;