# Dhaneshwar and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 40
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19604 of 1989
- **Bench:** S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhaneshwar-and-others-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-deoria-and-others-40269
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

with U.P.C.H. Act 1962 Sec. 9(9) (2)
Compromise whether the writ Court can
decide the petition on the basis of
Compromise
Held
No.
Parties
to
approach
before
the
consolidation
authorities along with certified copy of
compromise
application
after
due
verification. The effective line order can
be passed only by the writ court detail
guidalines issued in is regard.
Held: Para 6

Now the question is that as Apex Court
and this court has ruled that dispute
between the parties can be decided on
the basis of compromise in the writ
petition, if, Parties intended to settle
their dispute then what course is to be
adopted. On a careful consideration of all
the
practical
aspects
by
taking
precaution to rule out any wrong in the
exercise, this Court Is of the view that
following procedure should be adopted
for giving effect to the intention of the
parties for settling their disputes
Case Law:
2002 (93) R.D. 468
J.T. 2001 (6) S.C. 173
2002 (93) R.D. 430

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
40
approach or attitude is to be seriously
deprecated.

5. In view of the abovesaid facts and
circumstances,
in
our
opinion,
this
petition deserves to be allowed. The
petition is accordingly allowed and his
continued detention under the said Act is
hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be
released forthwith, if he is not otherwise
detained in any other offence.

6. A copy of this order shall be sent
immediately to the Secretary (Internal
Security Home Affairs), State of U.P. and
also to Union of India.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19604 of 1989

Dhaneshwar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.S. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Consolidation of India Art. 226 Read
with U.P.C.H. Act 1962 Sec. 9(9) (2)
Compromise whether the writ Court can
decide the petition on the basis of
Compromise
Held
No.
Parties
to
approach
before
the
consolidation
authorities along with certified copy of
compromise
application
after
due
verification. The effective line order can
be passed only by the writ court detail
guidalines issued in is regard.
Held: Para 6

Now the question is that as Apex Court
and this court has ruled that dispute
between the parties can be decided on
the basis of compromise in the writ
petition, if, Parties intended to settle
their dispute then what course is to be
adopted. On a careful consideration of all
the
practical
aspects
by
taking
precaution to rule out any wrong in the
exercise, this Court Is of the view that
following procedure should be adopted
for giving effect to the intention of the
parties for settling their disputes
Case Law:
2002 (93) R.D. 468
J.T. 2001 (6) S.C. 173
2002 (93) R.D. 430

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioners against the orders
passed by the Consolidation Authorities
in a proceeding under section 9-A (2) of
U.P.C.H. Act.

2. At the time of hearing of the writ
petitioner, Learned counsel appearing -for
both parties, submitted before this Court
that the parties have filed a compromise
and therefore, the writ petition may be
decided In terms of compromise.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the Court
has to examine that what order is to be
passed on the prayer as made by learned
counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the parties, on
the strength of the decision given by this
Court in the case of Surendra Nath Raid
Vs. Prahlad Singh 2002 (93) RD.468
and also the decision given by the Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Salika
Businessmen's Association Vs. Howrah
Municipal Corporation JT 2001 (6) SC
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Dhaneshwar and others V. D.D.C., Deoria and others
41
173 submitted that the writ petition can be
decided in terms of compromise. It is
pointed out that if the Court do not intend
to
pass
final
orders
in
terms
of
compromise then the matter may be
remitted to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation for deciding the dispute in
terms of compromise as has been opined
by this Court in the case of Laljee Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
reported in 2002 (93) RD 430.

5. In view of the aforesaid
submission, keeping in mind the decision
referred above, this Court has to examine
that what will be the better course for
dealing with the matter which may be in
accordance with the wishes of the parties
and also in the ends of justice but at the
same time by ruling out chances of any
fraud or malpractice while getting the
matter
finalised
on
the
basis
of
compromise from this Court. In this
respect, this Court can take note of
various happenings as has taken in the
past and even happening in present also
that sometime either of the party, with a
malafide intention gets Vakalatnama of
another counsel filed through whom,
compromise is filed and the matter is got
decided in ignorance to one of the party
concerned and thereafter as and when
concerned party approaches this Court by
moving application that he has never
consented to the compromise and he has
not signed the compromise then as the
controversy could not be adjudicated
without getting evidence of hand writing
expert without taking evidence in this
respect, a peculiar situation arises. Upon
the move by aggrieved party two situation
arises whether this Court is to examine
the factual aspects or the party be
relegated to approach the Civil Court for
getting the fraud investigated. If this
situation happens then the party who is
complaining about the fraud is to suffer
irreparable harassment besides lot of
complications, multiplicity of proceedings
and wastage of time of the Court and
money of the litigant. In the cases relied
by learned counsel for the parties, these
aspects appears to have not been noticed.
In view of the aforesaid, to rule out any
chance of malpractice, passing of final
order by this Court deciding the claim of
the
parties
on
the
basis
of
the
compromise, may not be in the ends of
justice. At this stage, the submission for
sending the compromise which is filed by
the parties to the Court below for
verification as has been observed by this
Court in the case of Laljee Vs. Deputv
Director-of Consolidation (Supra), also
not to be accepted as that also may take
quite long time besides lengthy exercise
of sending of the documents to the court
below and thereafter, after recording a
finding to remit all the papers to this
Court and then formality of passing orders
by this Court. As even after passing a
formal order by this Court, directing the
decision of the claim of the parties on the
basis of the compromise it is not end of
the matter, as it has to be given effect by
the consolidation authorities and thus the
exercise of sending the papers to the
authority and requiring him to send the
same after verification may also not be a
complete exercise.

6. Now the question is that as Apex
Court and this court has ruled that dispute
between the parties can be decided on the
basis of compromise in the writ petition,
if, Parties intended to settle their dispute
then what course is to be adopted. On a
careful consideration of all the practical
aspects by taking precaution to rule out
any wrong in the exercise, this Court Is of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
42
the view that following procedure should
be adopted for giving effect to the
intention of the parties for settling their
disputes;

i) On filing compromise before this
Court, a direction is to be given to the
parties to file fresh compromise in terms
of the compromise filed before this Court,
before the concerned authority and writ
petition may be directed to be listed after
a reasonable time.

ii) Concerned authority is to be directed
to entertain the Compromise if it is filed
along with certified copy of order of this
Court.

iii) Upon filing the compromise before
the concerned authority pursuant to the
directions of this Court, appropriate steps
for getting it verified in accordance with
law is to be taken by the authority,
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of copy of
compromise along with application.

iv) On getting the compromise verified,
the authority concerned will be required
to pass a formal order in writing that the
compromise has been verified and that the
parties have agreed to settle their dispute
in terms of compromise.

v) After the order is passed by the
concerned authority, it will be for either
of the parties to move an application
before this Court along with certified
copy of the order of the said authority
with the request for passing a formal
order, disposing of the writ petition,
giving liberty to the parties to move
application before the concerned authority
to give effect to the compromise which
has been arrived at before him, which had
been duly verified and accepted.

7. In the light of the aforesaid
process, this Court feels that chances of
any malpractice in getting any party
defrauded will be saved and the intention
of the parties to get their rights settled
byway of compromise will also be
achieved. On examination of the decision
as has been referred by learned counsel, it
is clear that these various aspects could
not be noticed which may not necessarily
arise in each case, but even if it arises in
some of the case, It may be harassment
rather harsh for the party who is to come
before this Court with the charge of fraud
on him and therefore, to rule out the
chance of fraud and the chances of this
Court being party in the suffering of any
party, disposal of the matter in the light of
the aforesaid process will be in the ends
of justice

8. For the reasons recorded above by
giving liberty to the parties to do the
needful in terms of the orders of this
Court, this writ petition is directed to be
listed immediately after two months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19367 0f 2003

Gajendra Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri A.K. Singh