High Court · 2025

Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocat e, assist ed by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocat e respondent nos.1 t o 5. Mr. Raj esh Pandey, St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. I n filed by det erm ined filed an Appeal under 2. Pet it ioner Sect ion 11 of Consolidat ion of Holdings Act , 1953 challenging t he order dat ed 11.01.1996 passed by Consolidat ion Officer in proceedings under Sect ion 9- A ( 2) of t he aforesaid Act . The said Appeal regist ered as Appeal No.556 of t he said Appeal, a 1996/ 1997. com prom ise deed was t he part ies t o t he Appeal, signed by all t he part ies, including t he pet it ioner and it was m ent ioned in t he said deed t hat t he share, t he Consolidat ion Officer, is correct and all t he share holders are in possession of t heir respect ive shares, t herefore, t here is no need of any change in t he order passed by Consolidat ion Officer. Before t he Appeal could be decided in t erm s of learned Set t lem ent t he com prom ise, t he Officer, Consolidat ion dism issed Appeal for non- prosecut ion vide order dat ed 10.12.1997. filed a Pet it ioner applicat ion, which was rest orat ion Officer, allowed Consolidat ion dat ed 10.05.2001. Respondent challenged t he order dat ed 10.05.2001 by filing Revision Direct or, Pet it ion Set t lem ent Deput y before Consolidat ion, which was dism issed on 10.07.2002. t hereaft er, Respondent , challenged t he order passed by Deput y Direct or, Consolidat ion in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No.546 of 2002, which t oo was dism issed vide order dat ed 24.12.2004 t he and Coordinat e Bench direct ed Appellat e Aut horit y t o decide t he Appeal on m erit s. Pet it ioner is aggrieved by order dat ed 13.08.2008 passed by Set t lem ent Consolidat ion, whereby her Appeal has been dism issed based on t he com prom ise deed dat ed 26.11.1996, which is under challenge in t his writ pet it ion. Pet it ioner has also challenged t he order dat ed 21.11.2013 passed by Deput y Direct or, Consolidat ion in Revision No.304/ 2012- 2013. Officer, respondent s want ed

3. I t is cont ended by learned Senior Counsel for t he pet it ioner t hat pet it ioner t he had m oved an applicat ion before Set t lem ent Officer, Consolidat ion on 10.05.2001 st at ing t hat pet it ioner want s t he Appeal t o be decided on m erit s and she does not want any order t o be passed on t he com prom ise deed dat ed t o 26.11.1996; obt ain deceit ful m eans, t herefore, pet it ioner want s t he Appeal t o be decided on m erit s and not based on com prom ise. Learned Senior Counsel furt her applicat ion was neit her considered nor disposed Officer, Consolidat ion and t he Set t lem ent Officer, Consolidat ion erred in law in deciding t he Appeal based on t he com prom ise which t he was sought pet it ioner. He furt her subm it s t hat t he key com ponent of a com prom ise willingness of t he part ies and if a part y t o t he com prom ise expresses unwillingness for decision of t he disput e based on t he ret ract ed by Set t lem ent cont ended t o be t hat t he com prom ise, t hen it is incum bent upon t he Court concerned t o decide t he case on m erit s and not based on com prom ise.

4. Per cont ra, Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 t o 5 subm it s t hat in view of t he com prom ise ent ered int o bet ween t he part ies, a sale deed was execut ed by t he respondent s in favour of pet it ioner on 22.11.1996, t herefore, t he com prom ise was act ed upon, t hus, pet it ioner was t he est opped com prom ise. resiling learned Senior 5. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Counsel t he pet it ioner, however, submits that petitioner paid ₹8,000/- as considerat ion for t he land purchased by him by m eans of sale deed dat ed 22.11.1996. He furt her subm it s t hat t he t here com prom ise deed dat ed 26.11.1996 and t he sale deed execut ed in favour of t he it was a volunt ary pet it ioner and t ransact ion t he com prom ise. independent bet ween ret ract This Court finds subst ance in t he 6. subm ission m ade by learned Senior Counsel for t he pet it ioner. Once a part y t o t he disput e says t hat he or she want s t o t he com prom ise by com prom ise was st at ing obt ained by fraud, and want s decision of t he disput e on m erit s, t hen Set t lem ent Officer, Consolidat ion had no occasion t o dism iss t he Appeal, based on such com prom ise. t hat t he t his short point alone,

7. On im pugned passed Consolidat ion and dat ed Set t lem ent t he 13.08.2008 Officer, t he order dat ed

21.11.2013 passed by Deput y Direct or, Consolidat ion deserve t o be quashed and are hereby quashed. The writ pet it ion st ands allowed and rem anded back t o Set t lem ent Officer, Consolidat ion for deciding t he Appeal on m erit s. t he m at t er ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

11.02.2025 Arpan