Jitendra vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 14.04.1977 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was an order passed on the basis of a compromise, the order dated 23.02.2015, whereby the Settlement Officer Consolidation has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 14.04.1977 and the revisional order dated 19.09.2018, whereby the consequential revision has been dismissed, are also impugned.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 19.09.2018 has observed that by the compromise order dated 14.04.1977 entered into by the alleged predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Hardeo was not challenged by the said Hardeo till his death sometime in the year 1991. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner, claiming on the basis of an alleged will executed in his favour by Hardeo filed the recall application for recall of order dated 14.04.1977.

Petitioner is the son of Munni Lal, the beneficiary under the compromise order dated 31.03.1977.

By the compromise, it had been decided that half share in the property in question would go to Munni Lal and the remaining half share would be retained by Hardeo and after his death, the same would also devolve upon Munni Lal. Therefore, the petitioner, at best could have claimed only with regard to the land in the name of Hardeo, post the compromise order.

It has also been opined that in view of the compromise order, nothing remained with Hardeo to be willed to the Jitendra, the petitioner. It has therefore, been held that the restoration application was rightly rejected.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality warranting interference.

For the same reason, the writ petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.