Puran Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar and others

S.K. Singh, J.—Heard learned Advocate who appeared for the petitioner and Sri Chaudhary, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent.

Challenge is to the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which certain changes in the chak of the parties has been made.

Proceedings are under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act which relates to the allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as on acceptance of claim of one side that is to cause discomfort to other, and therefore, this Court is to see that whether the last Court while adjusting the chak of the parties has considered the matter in accordance with law and whether there is any violation of section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that adjustment which was made by the Consolidation Officer was based on compromise/consent of the parties but the appellate authority without taking care of that aspect has illegally allowed the appeal on account of which petitioner has suffered serious prejudice and the Deputy Director of Consolidation without noticing the aforesaid has dismissed the revision. Submission is that on account of impugned adjustment allotment to the petitioner of plot No. 685 etc. by varying valuation and in respect to providing of chak road is not to the benefit of the petitioner and therefore, impugned judgment needs interference.

In response to the aforesaid, Sri Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that before the Consolidation Officer no consent/compromise was entered between the parties and in fact the alleged compromise was never signed by Birbal and therefore on filing appeal, appellate authority decided the claim of the parties on merits and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after noticing claim of both sides decided the revision by speaking order, in which no interference is required.

In view of the aforesaid this Court has decided the claim of parties.

There is no dispute about the fact that in the matter of adjustment scope of interference of this Court is quite limited. This Court is to see the violation of section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, if any, or the prejudice caused to the petitioner but at the same time if the arrangement is made with the consent of the parties then that is also to be respected and if order, is passed on consent then no appeal/revision can lie. Although the facrum of compromise as noted in the order of Consolidation Officer has been disputed by the respondent side on facts but there is no finding by the appellate authority on this score which can be said to be the valid ground for making necessary changes. Thus the Court below in making changes without taking note of the findings /observations as made by the Consolidation Officer about adjustment with the consent of the parties cannot be said to be justified. If the matter is" to be decided on merits then that is to be considered accordingly but if the matter is take rest on the basis of compromise then that is also be taken care.

Be as it may, Sri Chaudhary, learned Advocate being very fair to the other side submits that it will not be proper for this Court to record any finding on this score and if the matter is remitted to the revisional Court for its decision in accordance with law then that may do justice.

Accordingly, this Court need not to write more and thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. The revisional Court is directed'' to revive the revision to its original number and to decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations as made above. The decision is to be taken preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by either of the sides.