S.K.Singh - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.
(2.) AT the time of hearing of the writ petitioner, learned counsel appearing for both parties, submitted before this Court that the parties have filed a compromise and, therefore, the writ petition may be decided in terms of compromise. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has to examine that what order is to be passed on the prayer as made by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties, on the strength of the decision given by this Court in the case of Surendra Nath Rai v. Prahlad Singh, 2002 (3) AWC 2301 : 2002 (93) RD 468 and also the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Salika Businessmen's Association v. Howrah Municipal Corporation, JT 2001 (6) SC 173, submitted that the writ petition can be decided in terms of compromise. It is pointed out that if the Court do not intend to pass final orders in terms of compromise then the matter may be remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the dispute in terms of compromise as has been opined by this Court in the case of Laljee v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2001 (4) AWC 2743 : 2002 (93) RD 430.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid submission, keeping in mind the decision referred above, this Court has to examine that what will be the better course for dealing with the matter which may be in accordance with the wishes of the parties and also in the ends of justice but at the same time by ruling out chances of any fraud or malpractice while getting the matter finalised on the basis of compromise from this Court. IN this respect, this Court can take note of various happenings as has taken in the past and even happening in present also that sometime either of the party, with a mala fide intention gets vakalatnama of another counsel filed through whom, compromise is filed and the matter is got decided in ignorance to one of the party concerned and thereafter as and when concerned party approaches this Court by moving application, that he has never consented to the compromise and he has not signed the compromise, then as the controversy could not be adjudicated without getting evidence of hand writing expert, without taking evidence in this respect, a peculiar situation arises. Upon the move by aggrieved party two situation arises whether this Court is to examine the factual aspects or the party be relegated to approach the civil court for getting the fraud investigated. If this situation happens then the party who is complaining about the fraud is to suffer irreparable harassment besides lot of complications, multiplicity of proceedings and wastage of time of the Court and money of the litigant. IN the cases relied by learned counsel for the parties, these aspects appear to have not been noticed. IN view of the aforesaid, to rule out any chance of malpractice, passing of final order by this Court deciding the claim of the parties on the basis of the compromise, may not be in the ends of justice. At this stage, the submission for sending the compromise which is filed by the parties to the Court below for verification as has been observed by this Court in the case of Laljee v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), also not to be accepted as that also may take quite long time besides lengthy exercise of sending of the documents to the Court below and thereafter, after recording a finding to remit all the papers to this Court and then formality of passing orders by this Court. As even after passing a formal order by this Court, directing the decision of the claim of the parties on the basis of the compromise, it is not end of the matter, as it has to be given effect by the consolidation authorities and thus the exercise of sending the papers to the authority and requiring him to send the same after verification may also not be a complete exercise. Now the question is that as Apex Court and this Court has ruled that dispute between the parties can be decided on the basis of compromise in the writ petition, if parties intended to settle their dispute then what course is to be adopted. On a careful consideration of all the practical aspects by taking precaution to rule out any wrong in the exercise, this Court is of the view that following procedure should be adopted for giving effect to the intention of the parties for settling their disputes : "(i) On filing compromise before this Court, a direction is to be given to the parties to file fresh compromise in terms of the compromise filed before this Court, before the concerned authority and writ petition may be directed to be listed after a reasonable time. (ii) Concerned authority is to be directed to entertain the compromise if it is filed along with certified copy of order of this Court. (iii) Upon filing the compromise before the concerned authority pursuant to the directions of this Court, appropriate steps for getting it verified in accordance with law is to be taken by the authority, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of compromise along with application. (iv) On getting the compromise verified, the authority concerned will be required to pass a formal order in writing that the compromise has been verified and that the parties have agreed to settle their dispute in terms of compromise. (v) After the order is passed by the concerned authority, it will be for either of the parties to move an application before this Court along with certified copy of the order of the said authority with the request for passing a formal order, disposing of the writ petition, giving liberty to the parties to move application before the concerned authority to give effect to the compromise which has been arrived at before him, which had been duly verified and accepted." ;