S.K.Singh - (1.) -These are two connected writ petitions which arises out of the same dispute and against common orders as passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh/respondent No. 1. For the purpose of convenience, Writ Petition No. 34147 of 1993 is being taken up as leading case.
(2.) THE facts in brief, can be summarised for the purposes of disposal of these two writ petitions. THE father of respondent No. 3 (Ashok Kumar) namely Raj Narain filed objection under Section 9A (2) of U. P. C. H. Act claiming himself to be co-tenant with Yogendra Narain (respondent No. 4). THE Consolidation Officer rejected his objection but on appeal, Raj Narain was declared to be co-tenant by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 31.1.1972 which was confirmed in the revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 17.11.1972. Against the aforesaid judgments, the respondent No. 4 Yogendra Narain filed writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 1466 of 1973. It appears that some compromise was filed between the petitioner and the respondents in that petition on the basis of which, it was prayed that the writ petition be decided in terms of compromise. THEre were various clauses in the compromise. In the affidavit filed in support of the compromise, it was stated that the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer be restored, the objection of respondents be dismissed. Clause 2 (1) as mentioned in the affidavit referred above is to be quoted herewith : "That the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer be restored. THE objection of the respondent be dismissed." This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 22.8.1978 passed an order that the writ petition cannot be decided in terms of compromise and therefore, the writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing. It appears that thereafter, just after one week, the matter was listed on 31.8.1978 and writ petition was dismissed by making observation that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The aforesaid two orders of this Court dated 22.8.1978 and 31.8.1978 will also be useful to be quoted : "This is a compromise application. The petition cannot be decided in terms of compromise application in view of the recent decision of this Court. The petition itself be listed for final hearing at an early date along with this application. Sd/- S.D.A., J. 22.8.1978." "The parties have entered into a compromise. The compromise has been received back after due verification of the court below. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- G. N., J. 31.8.1978." After the final order of this Court dated 31.8.1978, the respondent No. 4 kept mum and he never approached the concerned authority for getting the orders of this Court implemented and for expunction of the name of Raj Narain. It appears that Raj Narain in due course of time died upon which, the respondent No. 3 being son was ordered to be mutated on 15.9.1991 who in its turn sold the land which he succeeded by means of registered sale deed dated 13.7.1972 in favour of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 34147 of 1993 for a sale consideration of Rs. 47,599. It is thereafter, the respondent No. 4 appears to have filed application on 27.8.1992 before the Consolidation Authorities for implementation of the order of this Court dated 31.8.1978. The Consolidator by his report dated 6.11.1993 referred the application to respondent No. 4 for dismissal upon which the Consolidation Officer on 6.9.1993 referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for passing appropriate orders. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 28.9.1993 directed the matter to be placed before the Consolidation Officer for implementing the order of this Court and the compromise. Against the order dated 28.9.1993, petitioners of Writ Petition No. 34147 have filed this petition in which an order of status quo regarding possession was granted by this Court on 11.10.1993. It appears that on the basis of the order of this Court dated 11.10.1993, parties approached the Deputy Director of Consolidation for staying the proceedings, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing order dated 2.11.1993 observed that this Court has not stayed the proceedings and therefore, he directed that amaldaramad of his order dated 28.9.1993 is to take place. Against these two orders, i.e., 2.11.1993 and 28.9.1993, other Writ Petition No. 34460 of 1993 has been filed by Ashok Kumar and others in which on 29.11.1993 further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 2.11.1993 and 28.9.1993 was stayed.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, in both writ petitions, order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.9.1993 and in Writ Petition No. 34460 of 1993, order dated 2.11.1993 has been prayed to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in its order dated 31.8.1978 has never directed the consolidation authority to pass a specific order in terms of compromise rather, the writ petition was dismissed and therefore, the proceedings for implementation of the compromise which is said to have been arrived at between the parties of Writ Petition No. 1566 of 1973 is clearly unjustified. It is then argued that the efforts on the part of respondent No. 4 is clearly mala fide inasmuch as the order of this Court is dated 31.8.1978 but for the last about 14 years, no steps whatsoever were taken by the respondent No. 4 for getting the name of Raj Narain expunged in the light of the alleged compromise for the simple reason that the same was not a genuine affair as Raj Narain had already succeeded from the Court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is further submitted that on the death of Raj Narain, no objection was raised by respondent No. 4 and the name of respondent No. 3 who happens to be the son of deceased was mutated by the order dated 15.9.1991 who on its turn sold the land to the petitioners by registered sale deed dated 13.7.1992 after taking adequate consideration and it is now thereafter, present move of respondent No. 4 has come into existence. On all these premises, it is argued that the order of respondent No. 1 is liable to be quashed.;