Raghuraj and Others vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

Dispute with respect to co-tenancy rights over the land in dispute between the, deceased father of the present Petitioners and the contesting Respondents was disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.12.1985 on the basis of compromise between the parties and the contesting Respondents were recorded co-sharers along with the father of the present Petitioners. After about 22 years of passing of the order and death of their father, the present Petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that the alleged compromise was forged and their fattier never entered into any compromise and it was only on 20.12.2007 when the contesting Respondents have forcibly tried to take possession over the land in dispute then they made inquiries and came to know about the order. Settlement Officer Consolidation by means of a cursory order not only condoned the delay but allowed the appeal on the finding that no evidence was adduced by the contesting Respondents to establish their co-tenancy rights over the land in dispute and in the absence of any such evidence they have wrongly been directed to be recorded as co-sharers. Contesting Respondents went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that the parties are members of joint family which fact has not been disputed and the compromise was duly verified in the presence of then Pradhan and the members of the Consolidation Committee and was in accordance with Rule 25-A of the Rules framed under the Act, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

It is an admitted fact that after passing of the order the father of the Petitioners who died in 2004 never raised any objection with regard to co-tenancy rights having been conferred on the contesting Respondents in accordance with the compromise entered into between the parties. It was only after three years after death of their father, the present Petitioners filed an appeal challenging the order on the allegation that the compromise was forged and fabricated.

In view of the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the parties are members of the joint family and the contesting Respondents were declared co-sharers in accordance with duly recorded compromise, the highly belated appeal filed by the Petitioners after death of their father was not liable to be entertained and was wrongly allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the said wrong has been set right by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by allowing the revision.

In view of aforesaid facts and discussions, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition fails and stands dismissed.