Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) SRI Prem Prakash Yadav has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting Respondent -5. Notice on behalf of Respondents -1 to 3 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of Respondent -4 has been accepted by Sri M.K. Yadav. Respondents -6 to 10 are proforma parties, as such, notices are not required to be issued to them. The Counsel for the Respondent -5 does not propose to file any counter affidavit in the facts of the case. Salik (father of the petitioner) and Sukal (father of respondent -5), were real brothers and co -sharers in the land in dispute. In chak allotment proceedings, an objection was filed by Sukal, claiming that he had not been allotted land in the paddy growing area, as such, being co -sharer, he may also be allotted a chak to the extent of his 1/2 share in the paddy growing area. It is alleged by Sukal that the matter was compromised between the parties and a written compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer on 13.4.1971. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of compromise, decided the case by the order dated 22.6.1971. However, amendment chart, attached in the order 22.6.1971 was not correctly prepared according to the terms of compromise. Salik and Sukal, being real brothers, remained in possession according to the compromise over 1/2 share in both quality of the land, i.e. paddy growing low level land and higher level land, throughout it was only in the year 1992, he came to know about the illegality committed in the amendment chart attached to the order dated 22.6.1971, then he filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation, along with a delay condonation application. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by the order dated 16.2.1994 condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. Respondent -5 filed an application for recall of the order on the allegation that the order dated 16.2.1994 was ex parte against him but Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 2.5.2012 rejected the recall application.
(2.) RESPONDENT -5 filed two revisions from the aforesaid orders on the allegation that Sukal (his father) was dead and no notice in the appeal was issued to him and the appeals were allowed without giving any opportunity of hearing. The revisions were heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by impugned order dated 31.10.2013 held that the appeal was allowed without issuing any notice to Respondent -5 and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. He further found that the delay of 21 years in filing the appeal could not have been condoned as in case Consolidation Officer has not passed the order on the basis of compromise, then the parties could have file appeal against it within reasonable time. On these findings, the revisions were allowed and the orders of appellate authority dated 16.2.1994 and 2.5.2012, were set aside. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer accepted the compromise and decided the objection in terms of the compromise. Under the compromise, Salik and Sukal both agreed for allotment of equal area to them of upper level land as well as lower level land but the amendment chart which was been attached to the order dated 22.6.1971, was not prepared according to the compromise. The parties, being illiterate persons, could not know about the discrepancy in the amendment chart and remained in possession over their respective 1/2 share in both quality of land according to the compromise. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal was rightly condoned by Settlement Officer Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on illegal premises held that in case the order was not passed according to the compromise, the parties were required to file an appeal within a reasonable time. He submits that the order was already passed by Consolidation Officer and the case was decided in terms of the compromise and the observation in this respect is unwarranted. Even if the order of the appellate Court was an ex parte order, Deputy Director of Consolidation should have either remanded the case to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal, or he himself should have decided the case on merit. The controversy was merely in respect of correction in the amendment chart which could have been corrected exercising powers under section 42 -A of the Act, for which no limitation has been prescribed. In case the respondent is denying filing of the compromise or passing of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.6.1971, then the matter was liable to be remanded for fresh decision on the objection filed by Salik.
(3.) THE Counsel for the respondents submits that the compromise itself is a forged document and not a genuine document. As such, neither the compromise, nor the amendment chart attached to the order dated 22.6.1971, were liable to be corrected. The appeal was highly barred by limitation and there had no explanation of the inordinate delay. Deputy Director of the Consolidation has not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal as time barred. The order does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;