Goverdhan and Others vs Heera and Others

Hon''ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

This is plaintiffs'' second appeal arising out of O.S. No.506 of 2001, which was dismissed on 02.08.2011 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kushinagar. Against the said decree plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Appeal No.28 of 2011, which was dismissed on 31.10.2011 by District Judge, Kushinagar, hence this second appeal. District Judge did commendable job by deciding the appeal in two months.

Property in dispute is agricultural land. Relief sought in the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. Plaintiffs claimed that Shiv Barat ancestor of plaintiffs and Chhedi proforma defendant No.3 was tenure holder of the land in dispute. Contesting defendants No.1 & 2 asserted that Shiv Barat alone was not the tenure holder and Sri Shiv Govind their ancestor was also co-tenure-holder along with Shiv Barat hence they also inherited the land in dispute.

In the year 1981 when consolidation was going on in the area in question a compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer purporting to have been signed by Bholu @ Ram Narain father of the contesting defendants admitting the claim of Ram Preet ancestor of plaintiff and proforma defendant. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter in accordance with the compromise and held that only Shiv Barat and thereafter his son Ram Preet was tenure-holder of the land in dispute. Against the said order of the C.O. appeal was field before S.O.C. which was allowed through judgment and order dated 19.01.1983 and thereafter matter was remanded to be decided on merit. Through order dated 22.12.2011, I directed the parties to bring on record the order of Consolidation Officer which might have been passed after the judgment of S.O.C. dated 09.01.1983. Counter rejoinder affidavits have been filed stating therein that matter is still pending as it was dismissed in default and restored several times.

The compromise was alleged to have been signed on 04.04.1979. It has been stated that by one word order "accepted" that compromise was again accepted on 13.04.2005 against which appeal is stated to be still pending before S.O.C.

As the matter relates to agricultural land and matter is Sub judice before consolidation courts hence the same could not be agitated before the Civil Court. As the compromise had been set aside hence the courts below rightly dismissed the suit. In respect of title to the agricultural land consolidation courts have got supremacy over all other courts. Neither any civil suit is maintainable for challenging order passed by consolidation courts ( Sita Ram Vs. C. Bhondey and Others, ) nor any suit is required to be filed for enforcement of any order.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the second appeal, hence it is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11, C.P.C.