K.N.Misra - (1.) -This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-5-1985 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation by which he has allowed the revision filed by opposite party No. 3 Kedar Nath and has set aside the order dated 30th May, 1984 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who had allowed the appeal of the petitioners and had remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh on merits after setting aside order dated 16-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the alleged conciliation proceedings.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the dispute in the present case relates to plot No. 100, 101, 102, 103 and 133 which were recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the names of the petitioners and Ram Autar. Ram Autar is said to have died some times in the year 1977 and the petitioners are said to be his legal heirs and representatives. It has been averred in the writ petition that opposite party No. 3 Kedar Nath did not file any objection under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nor any dispute was noted during Partal made by the consolidation staff in respect of aforesaid plots and this dispute was also not noted in CH Form No. 5 as well. The opposite party No. 3 however, asserted to be in possession over aforesaid plots for the last 20 years and had, thus, prefected Sirdari rights over said plots. It is stated that before the Assistant Consolidation Officer the parties had entered into compromise and in the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer an order was passed on 16-10-1976 by him directing the name of opposite party No. 3 to be recorded as Sirdar-tenant on the aforesaid plots after expunging the name of the recorded tenure holders. An appeal was filed by the petitioners against said order on 12-1-1983. It was asserted in appeal that the compromise was fictitious and manipulated one and it deserved to be set aside as it was not made in accordance with Rule 25-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It was also asserted that all the parties had not signed the said compromise and it was fictitiously made. An application for condonation of dealy was also moved by the appellants stating that they were not aware about the said order as compromise was not entered into by them. The said application for condonation of delay was opposed by Kedar Nath and it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed being time barred and that it also lacks merits. After hearing the parties the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal vide order dated 30th May, 1984 and condoned the delay after setting aside aforesaid order dated 16-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the case was remanded to the court of Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merits. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party No. 3 had preferred revision which has been allowed by the Joint Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8-5-1985. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by which he had condoned delay in filing the appeal and had remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merits. It was further urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation has wrongly upheld the claim of opposite party No. 3 regarding his being Sirdar-Tenant of the disputed holding, which was claimed by him on the basis of alleged adverse possession. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the learned Joint Director of Consolidation has wrongly upheld the claim of opposite party No. 3 by saying that since during Partal he was found to be in possession and it was claimed that he is in possession over the land for the last 20 years, and, as such, the absence of entry in the Khasra is not very material. Learned counsel urged that this observation of the Joint Director of Consolidation is perse wrong and is not legally sustainable on the facts as well as in law. Learned counsel had further urged that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, condoned the delay in fifing the appeal and has recorded good reasons for setting aside the alleged conciliation proceedings which were altogether fictitious and were got manipulated. It was pointed out that the Joint Director of Consolidation has passed his order on conjectures and surmises while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged compromise.
(3.) IN reply learned counsel for the opposite party urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation has assigned good reasons for not condoning the inordinate delay of 4 1/2 years in filing appeal. It was further urged that the parties had entered into compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and, thus, the order dated 16-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer deserved to be maintained and it has been rightly maintained by the Joint Director of Consolidation. I have considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation and also the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.;