- (1.) HEARD Sri Shiva Kant Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THIS Review Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.478 (Cons.) of 2007 Rajkumari and another versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition on the statement of the Counsel for the contesting respondents that consequent to compromise, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided the appeal on 18.1.1994 and Revision preferred against the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the instant Review Petition, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners contended that on 18.8.2008 when the case was dismissed, the counsel conducting the case, namely, Sri L. P. Ojha was suffering from viral fever and could not attend the Court. Therefore, the necessary and relevant facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents concealed the material facts resulting in grave injustice. As regards the error in the judgment under review, Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.2, namely, Smt. Saraswati Devi (now dead) was the owner of the property who transferred the land through a sale deed in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari, petitioner No.1. Therefore, after selling the property the petitioner No.2 has no right or authority to execute the alleged compromise deed dated 18.1.1994 in favour of contesting opposite parties. It is said that the opposite parties got executed a compromise deed dated 18.1.1994 through an impostor and on the said basis, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise vide order dated 18.1.1994. It has been pointed out that the private respondents were well aware of the fact that the petitioner No.1 has become the owner after execution of sale deed by the petitioner No.2, but she was not impleaded as party in appeal. It has been vehemently argued that on the date when the writ petition was dismissed, the counsel for the opposite parties were present, as would be apparent from the perusal of the impugned judgment, but they concealed the material and relevant facts deliberately resulting in ex parte dismissal of writ petition. It has been prayed that serious injustice would be caused if the aforesaid order is recalled.
(3.) ON behalf of contesting opposite parties, it has been submitted that land of chak no.1028 and 1071 situated at village Kirkhauli, pargana Magalsi, Tehsil Sohaval, District Faizabad was recorded in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi, W/o Harihar Singh in the basic year. On 30.11.1955, late Harihar Singh executed a Will in which he stated that the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi shall be recorded in the revenue records as Guzara-Dariya (Heen Hayati) and she shall have no right to transfer, mortgage, or sell her movable or immovable property and after her death, real brother Baksh Singh and his descendants shall be owners of the property. On the basis of the aforesaid Will, Sahab Baksh Singh filed a time-barred objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Maqbara vide order dated 10.9.1993. Thereafter, Sahab Baksh Singh preferred an appeal where late Smt. Saraswati Devi entered into compromise and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise vide order dated 18.1.1994. Late Smt. Saraswati Devi and Raj Kumari Devi preferred revision but the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed it vide judgment and order dated 28.6.2007. Therefore, there is no error apparent in the impugned judgment and the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed.;