Amar Nath v. D.D.C.And Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 301 of 1985 Petitioner :- Amar Nath Respondent :- D.D.C.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Nand Rai,A.K. Singh,Gyanendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- R. Prasad,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Heard Sri K.N. Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Narendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondents. The dispute in present case is regarding chak allotment, however, this writ petition is pending for last more than three and half decade. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the stage of Appellate Authority that there was a compromise between parties which was duly taken note by Appellate Authority and chaks were allotted accordingly, however, revision petition filed on behalf of respondent, an erroneous finding was returned since, the document of compromise was not on record, therefore, it cannot be looked into and revision petition was allowed. Learned counsel further submits that in this regard a specific averment has been taken in this writ petition and refers paragraph No.15 which is reproduced hereinafter:- "15. That the petitioner filed an application dated 25th September, 1984 to summon the record of case No.626 of 1984 (Bidhi Narain V. Amar Nath) decided on 5th January, 1984 under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the basis of the compromise dated 4th January, 1984. No order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the said application and the record of that case was also summoned." Despite this writ petition is pending for more than three and half decade but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent. Learned counsel for contesting respondents on basis of instruction submits that in case, this Court may remit the matter for fresh consideration, there may be a direction to decide it in a time bound manner. I have considered the above submission and perused the record, the Appellate Court has specifically noted about existence of compromise and for that relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- "पकኘ᭎ कको ससुनना गयना एववं गनाम कके अभभिलकेख व भिभूभचि्ቔ दकेखके गयय। कनागजनात कके अवलकोकन सके पनायना गयना भक अपपीलकतनाቔኋ कना जको चिक गनाटना सवंख्यना १६ आभद पर बनना थना उसमके चि.अ. कके आदकेश भदननावंक ११.८.८३ कके अनसुपनालन मय चिकदनार सवंख्यना ३४४ कको ३-०६ आनके ककी मनाललयत जको दपी जनानपी थपी वह गनाटना सवंख्यना १६/२ सके पभूरपी ककी गयपी हहै परन्तसु यह उभचित ्ቚतपीत नहीሻ हकोतना हहै क्यኘ᭎भक चि . अ . स्तर पर पकኘ᭎ जको समझझौतना गनाटना सवंख्यना २७३ आभद पर बनके तपीसरके चिक

कके मनाललयत भदयके जनानके कना समझझौतना भकयना थना परन्तसु दकेय मनाललयत गनाटना सवंख्यना १६

/ २ पर बनके चिक सके भदयना गयना हहै। अततः अपपीलकतनाቔኋ ककी मनावंग कको

स्वपीकनार करतके हहए भवपकपी कना चिक जको गनाटना सवंख्यना १६

/ २ पर बनना हहै वह

भनरस्त करकके अपपीलकतनाቔኋ कको भदयना जनातना हहै तथना भवपकपी कको अपपीलकतनाቔኋ कके स . चि . अ . स्तर पर बनके तपीसरके चिक सके जको गनाटना सवंख्यना २७३ आभद पर बनना हहै

मय चिक भदयना जनातना हहै।" (Emphasis Supplied) In the aforesaid circumstances, the finding returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation that compromise was not on record appears to be incorrect. It appears that Revisional Authority has not summoned the records, therefore, an irregularity has erupted. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh after hearing parties and taking note of the compromise also, preferably within a period of two and half months from today. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 P. Pandey High Court of Judicature at Allahabad