Allahabad High Court
Pyare Singh vs The D.D.C. Meerut And Others on 21 July, 2023
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146022 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6199 of 1979 Petitioner :- Pyare Singh Respondent :- The Deputy Director of Consolidation Meerut and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar, J P Singh, S. Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- J.N. Singh, Anil Shikla, Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Bal Krishna Pandey, N.K. Srivastava, Neeraj Agrawal. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Order on Amendment Application
1. Amendment application filed on behalf of Respondent-3 today in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. Allowed.
4. Consequential amendment be carried out during course of the date.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent-3.
2. This writ petition is pending before this Court since 1979. The parties to litigation belongs to one family.
3. Shiv Lal son of Kidda died leaving behind a registered Will dated 23.05.1969 and the Will is apparently not in dispute. A dispute arose between parties with regard to land and two proceedings were initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which were dropped vide orders dated 26.12.1973 and 28.12.1973 respectively apparently on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise and disputed land was released in favour of one of the party.
4. As per compromise a Haweli remained in possession of original petitioner of this writ petition and land remained in possession of origianl Respondent-3. Since consolidation proceedings were pending, objections were filed by both parties under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953"). Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.05.1975 accepted and relied on compromise entered between parties and which was referred in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Consolidation Officer held that agricultural land belong to deceased, Shiv Lal shall exclusively goes to original Respondent-3.
5. Original petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 23.12.1978 and land was devolved in favour of original petitioner and original Respondent-3 equally on the basis of Will. Appellate Authority held that Will was proved and compromise entered during proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. Relevant finding of Appellate Authority is mentioned hereinafter:
"९. .... क्योंकि यह जोर जबरदस्ती के आधार पर करा लिया गया है जैसा कि प्यारे सिंह ने अपने जवाब में भी कहा है इसलिये मेरी राय में इस प्रकार के समझौते को कोई कानूनी महत्व देना अनुचित होगा।
......
११. उपरोक्त विवेचना से यह बात स्पष्ट हो जाती है कि वसीयत या शिवलाल के द्वारा की गयी जो पूरी तरह से साबित कर दी गयी। इस वसीयत से दोनो पक्ष को हक मिलते है तथा समझौता भी पक्षों के दरमियान विवादित भूमि के संबंध में अदालत में बाहर हुआ जिससे प्यारे सिंह के हकों पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ता है। इस तौर पर अपील कामयाब होने योग्य है वह अदालत मातहत का आदेश उपरोक्त रद्द होने योग्य है।" (Emphasis supplied)
6. Original Respondent-3 thereafter a preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 22.05.1979 and relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:
"६- चकबन्दी अधिकारी की पत्रावली के अध्ययन करने से स्पष्ट है कि परगना अधिकारी के न्यायालय मे दो फैसले दाखिल किये गये जिसके अनुसार कैमशास्त्र हवेली पर कब्जा प्यारे है और विवादित भूमि पर कब्जा चन्द्रपाल सिंह का है तस्दीक किये गये इसके अतिरिक्त जो समझौता चकबन्दी अधिकारी के न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत किया गया और जिसके प्यारे द्वारा मान्यता न देने का तर्क है वह विद्वान अधिवक्तागण द्वारा पूर्ण रुपेण तस्दीक किया गया है चूंकि यह समझौता भी उसी तिथि का है जिस तिथि मे परगनाधिकारी के समक्ष समझौता उभय पक्षो द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया और विद्वान अधिवक्तागण द्वारा तस्दीक शुदा है अतः मेरे विचार से यह एक पारिवारिक समझौते की मान्यता रखता है। विद्वान वकील प्रतिपक्षी का यह कथन कि इस समझौते की शनाख्त उन्होने जल्दी मे की थी कोई मायने नही रखती है क्योंकि वे प्रारम्भ से ही प्यारे के विद्वान अधिवक्ता के रूप में न्यायालय में उपस्थित होते रहे है। इस फैसले के आधार पर परगनाधिकारी ने अपना फैसला दिया है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि वसीयत रजिस्टर्ड है और वह ठीक प्रकार से सिद्ध करायी गयी है अब प्रश्न यह है कि पारिवारिक समझौता की मान्यता किस हद तक वसीयत से अधिक मानी जावेगी। इस सम्बन्ध में आर०डी० १९७५ पा (३८५ का गहन अध्ययन किया गया। मेरे विचार से यह रूलिंग इस निगरानी में लागू नही होती है क्योंकि यह सीरदारी के अधिकार प्राप्त करने के आने मे दी गयी है और प्रस्तुत निगरानी मे इस प्रकार का कोई विवाद बिन्दु नही रहा है। जहां तक माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नवीनतम कानून का प्रश्न है उसके अनुसार यह स्थापित कानून है कि कोई भी पारिवारिक समझौता उस समय तक माना जायेगा जब तक कि उसको उचित न्यायालय द्वारा खारिज नही कर दिया गया है इस वाद में प्यारे यह आधार तो लेते रहे है कि विभिन्न स्तरों पर किये गये समझौते मान्य नही है परन्तु उन्होने किसी भी न्यायालय द्वारा इन समझौतो के खारिज कराने की कोई प्रक्रिया नही अपनायी है। ऐसा परिस्थिति में इन समझौते की मान्यता कम नहीं की जा सकती है। यह समझौते वसीयत से अधिक प्रभाव रखते है अतः मेरे विचार से विद्वान चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने समझौते के आधार पर चन्द्रपाल को जो हक दिये है वह न्यायोचित है और उसपे किसी हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नही है मेरे विचार से इस सम्बन्ध में विद्वान बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी द्वारा दिया गया निर्णय दोषपूर्ण है और खारिज होने योग्य है।"
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Original petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court by filing present writ petition.
8. During pendency of this writ petition, both, original petitioner and original Respondent-3 have died and their legal heirs are brought on record.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Will was duly proved and alleged compromise which was basis of orders passed in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied on since the compromise was not proved in accordance with procedure prescribed under Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1954"). He refers statements of both Advocates (Annexures-4 and 5 to this writ petition), who had put their signatures on alleged compromise that original petitioner has not put his thumb impression in their presence.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the object of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is to ensure peace as and when parties are likely to cause breach of peace with regard to land concerned. Any finding recorded in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. would not determine title. It is only for the purpose of maintaining peace and possession in accordance with law. In support of submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Bhinka and others vs. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960 and relevant paragraph of judgment is reproduced as under:
"16. This leads us to the consideration of the legal effect of the order made by the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 145(6) of the Code, a Magistrate is authorized to issue an order declaring a party to be entitled to possession of a land until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The Magistrate does not purport to decide a party's title or right to possession of the land but expressly reserves that question to be decided in due course of law. The foundation of his jurisdiction is on apprehension of the breach of the peace, and, with that object, he makes a temporary order irrespective of the rights of the parties, which will have to be agitated and disposed of in the manner provided by law. The life of the said order is conterminous with the passing of a decree by a Civil Court and the moment a Civil Court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the Criminal Court. The Privy Council in Dinomoni Chowdhrani v. Brojo Mohini Chowdhrani, (1901) 29 Ind App 24, 33, tersely states the effect of orders under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus:
"These orders are merely police orders made to prevent breaches of the peace. They decide no question of title..............."
We, therefore, hold that a provisional order of a Magistrate in regard to possession irrespective of the rights of the parties cannot enable a person to resist the suit under Section 180 of the Act." (Emphasis supplied)
11. Learned counsel further placed reliance on another judgment of Supreme Court in Sadhuram Bansal vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar and others, 1984(3) SCC 410 and para 62 thereof is reproduced as under:
"62. The pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure and order, if any, passed thereon does not in any way affect the title of the parties to the disputed premises though it reflects the factum of possession. See the decision of this Court in the case of Bhinka and Others v. Charan Singh, (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 798."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of Respondent-3, submits that the compromise entered between parties was not under the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. whereas it was entered between parties on their own will without any pressure and contents thereof were relied on and are part of orders passed under said proceedings. She further submits that during consolidation proceedings before Consolidation Officer statements of parties were recorded including Advocates and a specific finding was returned with regard to validity of compromise and it has rightly acted upon and shares were allotted to parties. She further submits that in the compromise a Haweli was given to original petitioner and land in dispute was given to original Respondent-3. Original petitioner is still in possession of Haweli and due to impugned order legar heirs of petitioner have not only lost right over Haweli but have also lost half share of original Respondent-3. Once a compromise was entered between parties it is not open for one of the party to raise dispute thereon. Appellate Authority has erroneously allowed appeal, therefore, Revisional Authority has rightly set aside order passed by Appellate Authority.
13. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
14. The position of law with regard to proceedings undertaken under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not in dispute. The purport of proceedings is to maintain peace between parties when there is likelihood of disturbance of peace due to dispute of land or property. Any order passed therein neither create nor demolish a right on water. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered to be final with regard to dispute of title which has been cleared held by Supreme Court in Bhinka (supra) and Sadhuram Bansal (supra).
15. During consolidation proceedings the Will was disputed. However, it was held by Consolidation Officer and further upheld by Appellate and Revisional Authority that Will was genuine. The only dispute remains to consider is, whether the alleged compromise entered between parties which was reflected in the orders passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was valid compromise and consequences thereof in the proceedings under Act, 1953.
16. Rule 25-A of Rules, 1954 provides procedure to decide dispute on the basis of conciliation and there is a requirement that the terms should be recorded in presence of atleast two members of Consolidation Committee of village and the terms shall be read over to parties concerned also. Admittedly this procedure was not undertaken by Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer has independently considered the validity of compromise though no specific issue was framed in this regard and considered the statements of parties though it appears that the statements from side of original petitioner was not considered and returned a finding that compromise was a valid document and parties are bound by it.
17. The Appellate Authority has re-appreciated the evidence and come to conclusion that compromise has no legal effect. It has also considered that effect of orders passed in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is limited and it has no effect whatsoever on dispute with regard to title. Relevant findings have already been mentioned in preceding paragraph.
18. The Revisional Authority has upset the findings returned by the Appellate Authority and though has upheld the finding with regard to execution of Will, it has proceeded further that once a family settlement was entered, it would hold good till was not set aside by any Competent Court. However, the Revisional Authority has not specifically set aside the detailed findings returned by the Appellate Authority nor it has considered the effect of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, has committed a legal error. Impugned order has not passed in terms of factors given under Section 48(1) of Act, 1953 that any interference by Revisional Authority ought to be on the ground that order impugned is irregular, incorrect, illegal or against the propriety.
19. I have perused the statements of witnesses recorded before Consolidation Officer. The Advocates, who were signatory to compromise, in very specific terms have stated that, "मुझे यह ध्यान नहीं कि चन्द्रपाल ने मेरे सामने दस्तखत किया या नहीं। .... मुझे सही सही ध्यान नहीं आ रहा है कि मुझे इस तसिफिया को जय चन्द्र ने मुझे दिया था या और किसी ने वैसे यह तसिफया मेरे सामने तय नहीं हुआ मुझे यह भी ध्यान नहीं है कि तसिफया नामा के कागजात पर पहले से ही टाईप था या वही यह तसिफया नामा मेरे सामने अदालत में पेश नही हुआ।" (From statement of Sri Shailendra Kumar Jain, Advocate) "चूंकि मै जल्दी में था और जय चन्द्र का यकीन कर रहा था निशानी अंगूठा प्यारे सिंह मेरा खोला यानि लिखा हुआ नही मैने जय चन्द्र से चलते वक्त यह कहा था कि प्यारे सिंह का अंगूठा लगवा दीजिये तो उस समय प्यारे सिंह वही मौजूद नहीं थे इसलिए मैने जयचन्द्र के यकीन पर ही प्यारे सिंह के अगूठों को तस्दीक कर दिये तस्दीक नामा के तीनो पत्रों पर मरे सनाकत के हस्ताक्षर है।" (From statement of Sri Kedar Singh, Advocate). On the basis of such nature of evidence the alleged compromise cannot be proved. Therefore, Appellate Authority has therefore rightly interfered with the order passed by Consolidation Officer and as referred earlier the Revisional Authority has interfered with the order of Appellate Authority in a very cursory manner without considering evidence on record as well as law with regard to proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as well as without considering the factors mentioned under Section 48(1) of Act, 1953. The Revisional Authority has also not considered the evidence led in support of compromise, which was on face of it was not sufficient to prove the same. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Revisional Authority has committed error.
20. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.05.1979 passed by the Revisional Authority is set aside and the order dated 23.12.1978 passed by the Appellate Authority is affirmed.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.07.2023 AK