R.P. Singh, J.@mdashBy means of this writ petition, the Petitioners challenged the order passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 31.12.1974 and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.09.1975.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of plots in Khata Nos. Akha and 5. Brief facts of the case are thac in the basic year the name of the Respondent No. 4 was recorded over the - plots in khata No. 4 kha and that of Respondents No. 5 to 8 in khata No. 5, against which an objection was filed by the Petitioners on the ground that Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 was formerly their servant and he wrongly got his name entered over the plots in dispute and subsequently transferred the plot of khata No. 5 in favour of Respondents 5 to 8. It was further stated that though the compromise decree was passed on 13-1-1985 in suit No. 41 filed by Chandrika Singh against the Petitioners but the said decree was fraudulent and never acted upon and that the names of the contetsing Respondents may be expunged and that of the Petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars thereof.
3. The ob section filed by the Petitioners was contested by the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the ground that they are in possession over the plots in dispute as Bhumidhars and that Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 had filed a suit No. 41 u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolitition and Land Reforms Act for a declaration that he was an Adhivasi of the land in suit and in that suit compromise was arrived at between Chandrika Singh and the Petitioners, on the basis of which the suit was decreed in favour of Chandrika Singh and that the compromise decree is binding on the parties and now the Petitioners are estopped from challenging the decree passed in suit No. 41. It was further argued on behalf of Respondents that another suit No. 635 was also filed by Chandrika Singh u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of four plots, which were not covered by the earlier suit No. 41 which was decreed in the year 1955 and since this suit No. 635 filed by Chandrika Singh u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was also decreed and hence, on the basis of the decree passed by the competent court, the Respondents are rightly recorded as Bhumidhars thereof and the claim of the Petitioners is liable to be rejected.
4. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 15.04.1974 allowed the objection of the Petitioners in respect of plots Nos. 232, 395, 427, 378, 1121 and 1266 ordering the name of Chandrika Singh to be expunged therefrom and instead ordered the names of the Petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars thereof. The Consolidation Officer, however, dismissed the objection of the Petitioners in respect of plots Nos. 941, 1143, 938, 1001 and 437.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, both the parties went up in appeal before the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who vide his order dated 31.12.1974 allowed the appeal filed by the contesting Respondents while dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioners, ordering the names of the contesting Respondents be recorded over the plots in dispute against which the Petitioners went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also dismissed the revision vide his order dated 24.09.1975 upholding the order passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
6. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners strenuouslys.ubmitted that the consolidation authorities have wrongly held that since the Petitioners could not file any suit for possession within a period of three years from the date of the order passed in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.01.65 when Chandrika Singh was held to be in possession of the land in dispute and hence the rights of the Petitioners are extinguished and hence they are not entitled to Bhumidhari rights. There is force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have wrongly applied the limitation of three years from the date of the order passed in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of tne Respondent No. 4, Chandrika Singh. The Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and also the Deputy Director of Consolidation have held that since Chandrika Singh was found to be in possession of the plots in dispute in proceedings u/s 145 Code fo Criminla on 14.10.65 and the Petitioners having failed to file any suit for possession of the land in dispute within a period of three years from that date, the rights and title of the Petitioners are extinguished. This approach of the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is patently erroneous inasmuch as the limitation of three years was extended to six yeais for obtaining possession on 27th March, 1959 and it has also been brought to my notice by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that a notification u/s 4(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was published in respect of ihe village in dispute on 4th March, 1972 and hence, obviously, the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were wrong in holding that simply because the Petitioners could not file any suit for possession within three years of the order passed in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.10.65, the rights and title of the Petitioners are extinguished and on this basis, the claim of the Petitioners could not be rejected.
8. However, learned Counsel for the Respondents strenuously argued that in suit No. 41 filed u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 against the Petitioners, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise holding that Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 was entitled to the plots situate in schedule A which pertain to khata No. 4 kha and this compromise decree is binding between the parties on the principle of estoppel. Therefore, it has to be seen if the claim of the petitioneis is barred on account of the law of estoppel on the basis of this compromise decree passed on 13-155 in suit No. 41. The Consolidation Officer while dealing with this aspect of the case has held that the compromise decree passed in suit No. 41 between the parties was not acted upon and the name of the contesting Respondent 4, Chandrika Singh was not entered in the record. On the basis of this decree, the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in appeal, however, held that this compromise decree passed in suit No. 41 dated 13.1.55 is binding between the parties and the Petitioners are estopped from challenging the rights of Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 over the plots in khata No. 4 kha, which are in dispute. The Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has also held in his order that nothing has been shown by the Petitioners how and why the compromise decree passed in suit No. 41 u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot be ielied upon or in any way bad in law. Thus relying on the compromise decree passed in suit No. 41, the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal of Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 holding that the Petitioners are estopped from challenging this decree, which had never been quashed in any proceedings earlier. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also relied on this compromise decree passed in the aforesaid suit as will be clear from a perusal of the list paragraph of the order passed by him and hence dismissed the revision filed by the Petitioners.
9. It has been seriously contested by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the compromise decree cannot strictly be regarded as a decision on a matter which was heard and finally decided and cannot operate as res judicata and in support of his contention placed reliance in the case of
10. Learned Counsel for the Respondents in support of his contention placed reliance in the case of
11. Another suit No. 635 had also been filed by Chandrika Singh u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was decreed on 26.11.1971 in respect of the plots not covered by suit No. 41 and the Consolidation Officer in his order has clearly held that this decree is binding as it was not challenged by the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Consoli dation Officer rejected the claim of the Petitioners on the basis of the decree passed in suit No. 635 u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also held that suit No. 635 was decreed in favour of the Respondents and accordingly the claim of the Petitioners have rightly been rejected in respect to the plots in dipsute which was earlier decided in suit No. 635 by a decree passed by the Asstt. Collector on 26.11.1971.
12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners next contended that the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have not given clear and categorical finding applying their mind to the dispute raised in the case and hence the orders passed by them are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a case reported in 1975 RD 275. In that case, it was held that where the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not applied his mind to the arguments raised by the parties and has not decided the case in accordance with law, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was liable to be quashed. This case, has, however, no application to the facts of the present case. The Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as the Dy. Director of Consolidation both have clearly relied on the compromise decree passed between the parties in suit No. 41 filed u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and have held that nothing has been shown by the Petitioners that why such a decree is not binding on the parties and that the claim of the Petitioners is clearly barred by law of estoppel. Hence the case cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is not applicable and the consolidation authorities have applied their mind to the controversy involved in the case between the parties and gave a clear decision that the compromise decree passed between the parties, which has never been challenged for such a long period, is binding as an estoppel against the Petitioners from setting up their claim of Bhumidhari rights over the plots in dispute.
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners next placed reliance on a case reported in 1972 RD 336 wherein it was held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation must record a categorical finding as to whether he agrees with thff finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or not and failure to do so amounts to a manifest error committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. As already stated earlier, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has agreed with the finding of fact and conclusions arrived at by Asstt. Settlement Officer Consolidation and has held that the decree passed in suit No. 41 between the parties is clearly binding and the claim of che Petitioners has been rejected on that account.
14. The result is that there are no merits in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, of the case, however, I make no order as to costs.
15. In pursuance of an order passed on 20.11.1975 the Petitioners were allowed to remain in possession provided they deposit a sum of Rs. 2200/- as mesne profit every year with the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The amount so deposited as mesne profit with the Deputy Director of Consolidation will now be paid to the successful party i. e. Chandrika Singh, Respondent No. 4 on his making an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
