- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the order of Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 23- 12-1992 and that of the Assis tant Consolidation Officer dated 25-3-1985 (Annexures-6 and 1) respectively.
(2.) THERE appears to be no dispute about certain basic facts and therefore, on their brief narration, writ petition can be conveniently disposed of. In the basic year record, name of petitioner was recorded. Objection was filed by contesting respondent under Section 12 of UPCH Act claiming muta tion of his name on the basis of sale-deed dated 23-2-1985 which is said to have been executed by petitioner in his favour. Admittedly, the objection of respondent, No. 3 was not allowed on merit after trial but on the basis of a compromise that objection came to be allowed and the name of petitioner was directed to be expunged and name of respondent No. 3 was permitted to be mutated/recorded over the land in dis pute. Against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 25-3-1985, revision was filed by petitioner in the year 1992 challenging the genuineness and validity of compromise and the order passed thereon. During penden cy of revision, an application is said to have been led for dismissing the revision as not pressed. Be as it may, petitioner opposed that move and thereupon, revision was taken up for hearing. The revision was dismissed by the order dated 23-12-1992 on the ground that it is highly belated and no satisfactory reason has been assigned and thus against the order of Assistant Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation dated 23-12-1992 and order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 25-3-1995, the writ petition has been filed by writ petitioner. Argument of Sri R. C. Singh, learned Counsel who appeared in sup port of this writ petition is that execution of sale-deed by petitioner who happens to be lady has been seriously dis puted/denied and in fact, petitioner could not get opportunity to prove the fact that execution of sale-deed is by some imposter and the opposite party got an order in his favour again from the Court of Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise, that was a fraud again played by opposite party not only on petitioner but also un the Court as well. Submission is that as no delivery of possession took place after the judgment of Assistant Consolida tion Officer and that the order was not implemented as and when petitioner's right was interfered, she filed revision and thus delay in filing the revision was cogently explained but the Revisional Court in a most cursory and sketchy manner without considering the grounds so taken, dismissed the petitioner's revision on technical ground Submission is that it is a case where fraud has been practiced on the lady while getting alleged sale-deed ex ecuted arid again order was obtained on the basis of compromise and this Court has to interfere exercising its equity jurisdiction.
(3.) IN response to the aforesaid, Sri Shah, learned Counsel submits that as the revision was filed after about seven years, the Revisional Court examined the grounds so given for condonation of delay and a finding has been recorded that no satisfactory explanation has been given for filing revision after such a long delay. Submission is that no fraud was played and she had put her thumb impression on the sale- deed and there after in the Court of Assistant Con solidation Officer, while entering into compromise and therefore, on the basis of sale-deed, name of respondent has been directed to be mutated, no excep tion can be taken to it. He submits that there is neither any illegality or perver sity and therefore, writ petition needs dismissal. In view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. There is no dispute about the fact that there is a registered sale-deed in favour of respondent. There is also no dispute about the fact that before Assistant Consolidation Officer, claim of respon dent was not decided on the basis of any trial. Admittedly, neither there was any objection from the side of petitioner nor any issues were framed nor parties were allowed to lead evidence nor there was any judgment on merits, rather in the belated objection, a compromise was filed and on that basis decision of Assistant Consolidation Officer came by which name of petitioner was directed to be expunged and the name of respondent was directed to be mutated. The claim of petitioner is that as the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was never given effect, there was no occasion for her to come to know about the order of Assistant Con solidation Officer as in fact, no proceed ings took place before the Assistant Consolidation Officer so as to enable petitioner to file his objection, to lead evidence and to get an opportunity of hearing on the ground that sale-deed was never executed by her and the sale-deed is a result of impersonation. Needless to say that if the sale-deed bears thumb-impression of petitioner and it is found to be voidable docu ments on the allegations, then Assistant Consolidation Officer may not be com petent to ignore the effect of sale- deed and to accept its validity. But at the same time, if it is found that the sale-deed do not bear signature/thumb im pression and it is a result of impersonation, as stated by petitioner, then the As sistant Consolidation Officer may have jurisdiction to get the matter decided on merit in respect to rival claim. Law is set tled that in respect to voidable docu ment, Consolidation Court have no jurisdiction to ignore the same but in respect to void document, that can be ignored and therefore, question which was before the Courts below and before this Court is that whether the sale-deed on the basis of which respondent claimed right was void or voidable document. To examine the aforesaid, certainly evidence from both sides can be said to be required and only then a finding can come but here is the case where mere was no stage of any evidence as the Assistant Consolida tion Officer decided the objection of respondent on the basis of com promise. It is not to be emphasized that after close of consolidation, the claim of parties is to be barred for fresh ad judication in any other Court in view of provision of Section 49 of the Act and therefore, it has been repeatedly said by the Courts that as far as possible, decision in respect to rights/claim of parties is to take rest on merits, that is to say after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing. The petitioner happens to be a lady. The claim is that the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was not implemented and given effect and there is no finding against this fact by the Court of Assistant Director of Con solidation and therefore, it appears that in respect to ground so taken by petitioner, she was entitled to get an op portunity to prove the allegation of fraud which is said to have been played while getting sale-deed executed and while getting the order from Assistant Con solidation Officer. The Revisional Court appears to have rejected petitioner's revision mainly having been impressed by the fact that revision has been filed after seven years without going into the correctness into the allegation that whether petitioner can be said to be aware about the order of Assistant Con solidation Officer and if so what are the circumstances and evidence in support of it. Two other aspects were stated by petitioner before this Court, that in the Revisional Court also, move was to get revision dismissed as not pressed and even before this Court to get the writ petition dismissed as not pressed, which has been vehemently opposed by Sri Shah, although cannot be taken to be a conclusive circumstance in favour of petitioner but on the facts of present case, slight assistance for taking view in favour of petitioner can be taken. On the facts and totality of the cir cumstances, this Court is satisfied that irrespective of merit in the compromise, this Court is n to express any opinion as on today, moving objection of petitioner that she did not enter into compromise and she did not execute any sale-deed was liable to be noticed, discussed and finding either way was li able to be recorded, but as that has not been done and the revision of petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation this Court exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution proposes to quash the order of Assistant Director of Consolida tion and at the same time permits par ties to join their hands in the Court of Consolidation Officer on the question of validity and genuineness of com promise on the basis of which, the order dated 25-3-1985 is said to have been passed. Now, it will be for the petitioner to apply before the Consolidation Of ficer alongwith certified copy of this order, by filing objection/application to recall/verify compromise order on the ground so available to her, upon which the respondent's side will be given ample opportunity of hearing and Con solidation Officer will decide the same in accordance with law by passing speak ing order. On facts, this Court further proposes to direct the Consolidation Officer to examine merits in the sale-deed itself in respect to dispute that whether that was a genuine document that is to say that the sale-deed was ex ecuted by petitioner or not, by permit ting parties to lead evidence in the respect A composite order dealing with merits of sale-deed and that of the com- promise will be passed by the Con solidation Officer upon which, it will be for either of the parties to take recourse permissible under law.;