Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar & Others vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gautam ... on 1 February, 2010
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: Rakesh Sharma
Court No.1 Recall Application No.933 of 2010.
And Recall Application No.348393 of 2009.
In C.M.Writ Petition No.32876 of 2007.
Ram Kumar & others Vs. DDC, G.B.Nagar & others
Connected with
Recall Application No.348390 of 2009.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28821 of 2007.
Bansh Ram & others Vs. State of U.P.& others.
And
Recall Application No.931 of 2010.
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32967 of 2008.
Smt. Archana Jain Vs. DDC, G.B.Nagar & others
Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J
Heard Sri U.N.Sharma, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri M.C.Singh and Uma Nath Singh for the applicant and Sri A.K.Sachan and Paliwal from the other side.
These three writ petitions were clubbed together and after hearing the parties were disposed of by a common judgement rendered on 8.12.2009. Three applications have been filed by some of the respondents indicating at the foot of the application seeking recall of the judgment and order rendered on 8.12.2009 branding it to be an exparte order.
Sri U.N.Sharma led the Court to various documents, pleadings in support of his submission that the reliefs given to the petitioner is beyond the scope of the writ petition. Some parties Ram Kumar, Bansh Ram etc. are common in these writ petitions and in one of the petition they have been impleaded as respondents and in other as petitioners. In these circumstances, there will be difficulty in executing the 2 directions contained in the judgment. He has further submitted that a compromise which was under challenge was not on record. However, Sri A.K.Sachan , counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated before the court that the compromise which was under challenge has already been filed in the Court after serving a copy of the same on the respondent. The same is on record.
Sri U.N.Sharma has submitted that the appeal before the SOC was hopelessly barred by law of limitation as the compromise was entered into between the parties on 7.10.1986. The respondents making a large group had entered into a compromise before the concerned authorities. He has tried to defend the compromise by making his submissions. According to him, each case have to be dealt with separately.
Some other points were also highlighted by Sri U.N.Sharma in assailing the judgment and order rendered on 8.12.2009.
Sri A.K.Sachan and P.K.Paliwal has resisted the motion. According to them all the aspects of the case have been dealt with by the Court. There existed a compromise which was obtained by committing fraud. The applicants respondents were neither recorded as tenure holder nor their names or their ancestors were on revenue and consolidation records. They were neither family members nor had connection with the property in dispute. As far as the names as indicated by Sri U.N.Sharma, learned senior advocate appearing in both the petitions, this issue was clarified by giving the parentage and connection which these persons had with the dispute. In fact the parties to dispute were bound by the resultant order. Thus learned counsel for the applicant has again reiterated their earlier submissions put forth at the time of the arguments.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment and record.
As per order sheet and the judgment, this Court has allowed the opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the concerned parties. In these writ petitions, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and other documents were perused. The arguments of some of the learned counsel representing the parties were heard and dealt with. Note of appearance has been taken in the order sheet and the judgment itself. This Court has dealt with the submissions of the parties put forth in the pleadings and during arguments in detail and written a detailed judgment running in 19 pages. The Court had found that the alleged compromise was obtained on 3 perpetrating fraud and collusion. Fraud and collusion vitiates even the most solemn proceedings in any civil system . When the petitioner learnt about the committal of fraud and existence of a compromise, they immediately rushed to the court and put forth their submissions before the concerned consolidation authorities. The Court had taken note that the petitioners or the persons from whom they had purchased property were recorded as tenure holders. The land was purchased and the mutation was carried out and necessary entries were recorded . In the basic year Khatauni, their names were recorded.
This Court has also considered the law on the subject and given detail finding. As far as Sri U.N.Sharm's argument that the relief was granted beyond the scope of the petition appears to be misconceived . Here is a case where ownership of agricultural land is disputed. As a result of the judgment and order, the entries in revenue and consolidation records have to be corrected. The real owners of the land had to be put back to the possession. The Court cannot be persuaded to look into the technicalities but it has to dispense with substantial justice. These were writ petitions and the Court is empowered to mould the reliefs.
The applicant has failed to persuade this Court to review the judgment and recall the order. There is no element of O.47 R.1 CPC present in this case. All the issues raised were dealt with and the judgment was rendered on 8.1.2009 after hearing learned counsel for the parties. By making this application, the applicants have tried to reopen the dispute and in fact sought rehearing/retrial of the case There is no error apparent on the face of record. The applications are dismissed. The directions of the Court contained in the judgment dated 8.12.2009 shall be carried out.
VPC/1.2.2010