Shyama Devi @ Shyam Lata vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others

Vikram Nath, J.—Heard Sri Triveni Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and S/Sri R.C. Singh and P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents.

Precisely, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad committed an error in not honouring the compromise dated 1.3.1980 and giving rights to the petitioner only in respect of the Bhumidhari land covered under the Will of Sheo Pratap Singh dated 2.10.1975 and further giving rights to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to the Sirdari land covered under the aforesaid Will. On the other hand the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in effect did not accept the compromise and therefore rightly passed the order by giving the Bhumidhari land to the petitioner and Sirdari land to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Having considered the submissions and having perused the record this writ petition is liable to be allowed on a very short point.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation was dealing with two issues; firstly, with regard to the validity of the execution of the Will dated 2.10.1975 and secondly, with regard to the validity of the compromise dated 1.3.1980. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment has mentioned in paragraph No. 10 that the discussion with regard to the validity of the compromise dated 1.3.1980 would be made at a later stage and a finding would accordingly be recorded. However, from the perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that subsequent to paragraph No. 10 no discussion or finding has been recorded with regard to the validity of the compromise dated 1.3.1980. The discussion made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, either before paragraph No. 10 or subsequent to paragraph No. 10 of the judgment, only relates to the validity of the execution of the Will. In this view of the matter the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation stands vitiated, inasmuch as, the genuineness/correctness of the compromise dated 13.1980 was a relevant issue and no discussion or finding having been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the same.

In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.4.1986 impugned in the present writ petition is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh and record a specific finding with regard to the validity of the compromise dated 1.3.1980. However, as there is no dispute with regard to the validity of the execution of the Will dated 2.10.1975 the finding of the Deputy Director to that extent is affirmed.

Since this petition is of the year 1986 it would be appropriate that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may make an endeavour to decide the revision expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. It goes without saying that both the parties shall cooperate in the hearing of the revision.

Writ petition allowed as above but without any order as to costs.