{"id":219983,"date":"2010-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-09T13:05:41","modified_gmt":"2018-03-09T07:35:41","slug":"smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                      1\n\nA.F.R\nReserved\/Court\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a06\n\nCase\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0WRIT\u00a0\u00ad\u00a0B\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a06068\u00a0of\u00a01992\n\nPetitioner\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Smt.\u00a0Bhagwan\u00a0Dei\nRespondent\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Board\u00a0Of\u00a0Revenue\u00a0Alld.\u00a0And\u00a0Ors.\nPetitioner\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0V.D.\u00a0Ojha\nRespondent\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0V.B.L.\u00a0Srivastava,Arun\u00a0Kumar,B.K.\u00a0\nSrivastava,Govind\u00a0Krishan,R.K.\u00a0Srivastava,R.K.\u00a0Tripathi,R.S.\u00a0\nMishra,Radhey\u00a0Shyam,S.C.,Sushil\u00a0Jaiswal,Tripathi\u00a0\nB.G.Bhai,V.K.\u00a0Singh,Vinod\u00a0Krishna\n\n\nHon'ble\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Krishna,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>This\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0second\u00a0round\u00a0of\u00a0litigation\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0High\u00a0Court.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0only\u00a0<br \/>\npoint \u00a0 mooted \u00a0 presently \u00a0 is \u00a0 whether \u00a0 the \u00a0 issue \u00a0 sought \u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0<br \/>\nraised\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00adrespondent\u00a0herein\u00a0is\u00a0barred\u00a0by\u00a0section\u00a0<br \/>\n11\u00a0of\u00a0CPC\u00a0 \u00a0or\u00a0not.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0background\u00a0facts\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0noticed\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nbrief:\n<\/p>\n<p>Bhairon \u00a0 Bux \u00a0 \u00a0 was \u00a0 the \u00a0 recorded \u00a0 tenant \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 revenue \u00a0 land\u00a0<br \/>\nwhich \u00a0 is \u00a0 subject \u00a0 matter \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 litigation. \u00a0 \u00a0 The\u00a0<br \/>\npetitioner\u00a0is\u00a0the\u00a0daughter\u00a0of\u00a0Bhairon\u00a0Bux.\u00a0 \u00a0Bhairon\u00a0Bux\u00a0 \u00a0died\u00a0<br \/>\nlong\u00a0ago\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0date\u00a0of\u00a0vesting\u00a0i.e\u00a01.7.1952\u00a0leaving\u00a0\u00a0behind\u00a0<br \/>\nhim\u00a0his\u00a0widow\u00a0Smt.Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0who\u00a0after\u00a0about\u00a0two\u00a0years\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\ndeath\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0Bhairon\u00a0Bux,\u00a0\u00a0remarried\u00a0with\u00a0one\u00a0Ram\u00a0Nath.\u00a0\u00a0Bharat\u00a0<br \/>\nLal,\u00a0respondent\u00a0No.\u00a04\u00a0herein\u00a0is\u00a0son\u00a0of\u00a0Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0and\u00a0Ram\u00a0<br \/>\nNath. \u00a0 \u00a0 Smt.Samudra \u00a0 Devi \u00a0 succeeded \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 property \u00a0 \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nBhairon\u00a0Bux\u00a0and\u00a0her\u00a0name\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0admitted,\u00a0was\u00a0recorded\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nrevenue \u00a0 record \u00a0 and \u00a0 continued \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 so \u00a0 \u00a0 even \u00a0 after \u00a0 her\u00a0<br \/>\nremarriage \u00a0 with \u00a0 Ram \u00a0 Nath. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 Village \u00a0 wherein \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nagricultural \u00a0 land \u00a0 lay \u00a0 was \u00a0 notified \u00a0 under \u00a0 section \u00a0 4(2) \u00a0 of \u00a0 U.P\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation\u00a0of\u00a0Land\u00a0Holding\u00a0Act\u00a0herein\u00a0after\u00a0referred\u00a0to\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0Act.\u00a0No\u00a0objection\u00a0disputing\u00a0the\u00a0right,\u00a0title\u00a0and\u00a0interest\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nSmt. \u00a0 Samudra \u00a0 Devi \u00a0 over \u00a0 the \u00a0 land \u00a0 in \u00a0 dispute \u00a0 was \u00a0 filed \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\naccordingly \u00a0 chak \u00a0 was \u00a0 carved \u00a0 out \u00a0 in \u00a0 her \u00a0 name. \u00a0 When \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nconsolidation\u00a0proceedings\u00a0were\u00a0going\u00a0on\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0Village,\u00a0Smt.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0died\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0year\u00a01977.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0After\u00a0her\u00a0death\u00a0a\u00a0dispute\u00a0<br \/>\narose\u00a0in\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner\u00a0and\u00a0Bharat\u00a0Lal\u00a0(herein\u00a0after\u00a0<br \/>\nreferred\u00a0as\u00a0plaintiff).\u00a0\u00a0Both\u00a0these\u00a0persons\u00a0filed\u00a0applications\u00a0for\u00a0<br \/>\nrecording\u00a0their\u00a0names\u00a0in\u00a0place\u00a0of\u00a0Smt.Samudra\u00a0Devi.\u00a0 \u00a0These\u00a0<br \/>\napplications \u00a0 were \u00a0 numbered \u00a0 separately \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Assistant\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation \u00a0 Officer. \u00a0 \u00a0 According \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner, \u00a0 \u00a0 a\u00a0<br \/>\ncompromise\u00a0was\u00a0arrived\u00a0at\u00a0in\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nplaintiff,\u00a0\u00a0wherein\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0agreed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0land\u00a0in\u00a0dispute\u00a0<br \/>\nmay \u00a0 be \u00a0 recorded \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 name \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 said\u00a0<br \/>\ncompromise\u00a0application\u00a0is\u00a0dated\u00a07.12.1977\u00a0and\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nplaintiff.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0signature\u00a0of\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0\u00a0was\u00a0verified\u00a0by\u00a0his\u00a0counsel\u00a0<br \/>\nShri\u00a0Ram\u00a0Bahadur\u00a0Singh,\u00a0Advocate\u00a0on\u00a010.1.1978\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0order\u00a0<br \/>\nwas \u00a0passed \u00a0consequently\u00a0 on\u00a018.1.1978 \u00a0by \u00a0 the \u00a0Consolidation\u00a0<br \/>\nOfficer.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>The \u00a0 plaintiff \u00a0 Bharat \u00a0 lal \u00a0 instituted \u00a0 Suit \u00a0 No. \u00a0 33\/74 \u00a0 of \u00a0 1986\u00ad87\u00a0<br \/>\nbefore\u00a0the\u00a0Sub\u00a0Divisional\u00a0Magistrate\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a0229\u00adB\/209\u00a0<br \/>\nof \u00a0 U.P.Z.A \u00a0 &amp; \u00a0 L.R \u00a0 Act \u00a0 for \u00a0 declaration \u00a0 \u00a0 of \u00a0 his \u00a0 rights \u00a0 over \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ndisputed\u00a0plots,\u00a0eleven\u00a0in\u00a0numbers,\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0pleas\u00a0inter\u00a0alia\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0alleged\u00a0compromise\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0him\u00a0and\u00a0therefore,\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 order \u00a0 was \u00a0 obtained \u00a0 \u00a0 from \u00a0 the \u00a0 Consolidation \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 by\u00a0<br \/>\nplaying\u00a0fraud\u00a0and\u00a0as\u00a0such\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0binding\u00a0on\u00a0him;\u00a0 \u00a0he\u00a0being\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 son \u00a0 of \u00a0 Smt.Samudra \u00a0 Devi \u00a0 and \u00a0 Ram \u00a0 Nath \u00a0 inherited \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nproperty\u00a0in\u00a0dispute\u00a0and\u00a0is\u00a0in\u00a0occupation\u00a0thereof;\u00a0that\u00a0against\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0order\u00a0dated\u00a018.1.1978\u00a0passed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0Officer,\u00a0<br \/>\nhe \u00a0 preferred \u00a0 an \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Settlement \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation\u00a0which\u00a0was\u00a0dismissed\u00a0as\u00a0barred\u00a0by\u00a0time.<br \/>\nIn \u00a0 the \u00a0 written \u00a0 statement, \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner, \u00a0 came \u00a0 out \u00a0 with \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ncase\u00a0that\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0life\u00a0time\u00a0of\u00a0Smt.Samudra,\u00a0the\u00a0Village\u00a0came\u00a0<br \/>\nunder \u00a0 the \u00a0 Consolidation \u00a0 Operation \u00a0 and \u00a0 after \u00a0 death \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nSmt.Samudra, \u00a0 a \u00a0 compromise \u00a0 was \u00a0 arrived \u00a0 at \u00a0 in \u00a0 between \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\npetitioner\u00a0and\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0himself\u00a0 \u00a0and\u00a0an\u00a0order\u00a0was\u00a0passed\u00a0by\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0consolidation\u00a0officer\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0compromise,\u00a0<br \/>\nwhich\u00a0is\u00a0binding\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0compromise\u00a0application\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>was\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0and\u00a0was\u00a0verified\u00a0by\u00a0his\u00a0counsel\u00a0Shri\u00a0<br \/>\nRam\u00a0Bahadur\u00a0Singh.\u00a0It\u00a0was\u00a0further\u00a0pleaded\u00a0that\u00a0suit\u00a0is\u00a0barred\u00a0<br \/>\nby\u00a0Section\u00a049\u00a0of\u00a0U.P.C.H.Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>On\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0pleading\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0parties,\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0issues\u00a0<br \/>\nwere\u00a0struck\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0one\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0issue\u00a0was\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0suit\u00a0is\u00a0barred\u00a0<br \/>\nby\u00a0res\u00a0judicata\u00a0or\u00a0not.\u00a0 \u00a0It\u00a0was\u00a0issue\u00a0No.9.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0Trial\u00a0Court\u00a0by\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0order\u00a0dated\u00a021.12.1989.\u00a0without\u00a0giving\u00a0any\u00a0reason,\u00a0opined\u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0suit\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0barred\u00a0by\u00a0section\u00a011\u00a0of\u00a0CPC\u00a0and\u00a0fixed\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nnext\u00a0date\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0suit\u00a0for\u00a0further\u00a0progress.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0said\u00a0order\u00a0was\u00a0<br \/>\ncarried\u00a0in\u00a0revision\u00a0\u00a0being\u00a0Revision\u00a0No.20\u00a0of\u00a01990\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0<br \/>\npetitioner \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Additional \u00a0 Commissioner, \u00a0 Allahabad\u00a0<br \/>\nDivision,\u00a0Allahabad\u00a0who\u00a0dismissed\u00a0it\u00a0on\u00a016.7.1970\u00a0\u00a0which\u00a0\u00a0has\u00a0<br \/>\nbeen\u00a0confirmed\u00a0further\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Board\u00a0of\u00a0Revenue\u00a0in\u00a0Revision\u00a0<br \/>\nNo. \u00a0 82 \u00a0 of \u00a0 1989\u00ad90 \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 impugned \u00a0 judgement \u00a0 dated\u00a0<br \/>\n14.11.1991.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri\u00a0V.D.Ojha,\u00a0learned\u00a0counsel\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner\u00a0submits\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\nin \u00a0 view \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 earlier \u00a0 decision \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Settlement \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation\u00a0dated\u00a011.4.1979\u00a0in\u00a0Appeal\u00a0No.\u00a0588\/37\u00a0Bharat\u00a0lal\u00a0<br \/>\nversus\u00a0Bhagwan\u00a0Deen\u00a0&amp;\u00a0others)\u00a0holding\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0<br \/>\napplication\u00a0contains\u00a0the\u00a0signature\u00a0of\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0(Bharat\u00a0Lal)\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\nit\u00a0was\u00a0verified\u00a0by\u00a0his\u00a0counsel\u00a0namely\u00a0Shri\u00a0Ram\u00a0Bhadur\u00a0Singh,\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 suit \u00a0 is \u00a0 barred \u00a0 by \u00a0 Section \u00a0 11 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPC. \u00a0 \u00a0 It \u00a0 was \u00a0 further\u00a0<br \/>\nsubmitted \u00a0 that \u00a0 against \u00a0 the \u00a0 order \u00a0 of \u00a0 Settlement \u00a0 officer \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation, \u00a0 a \u00a0 writ \u00a0 petition \u00a0 No. \u00a0 2513 \u00a0 of \u00a0 1981 \u00a0(Bharat \u00a0 lal\u00a0<br \/>\nversus \u00a0 Deputy \u00a0 Direction \u00a0 of \u00a0 Consolidation)\u00a0 was \u00a0 preferred\u00a0<br \/>\nbefore\u00a0this\u00a0Court\u00a0which\u00a0too\u00a0was\u00a0dismissed\u00a0on\u00a016.7.1981.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0<br \/>\nsubmission\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0earlier\u00a0litigation\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0parties,\u00a0<br \/>\nit\u00a0was\u00a0decided\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0application\u00a0contains\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nsignature \u00a0of \u00a0Bharat \u00a0Lal, \u00a0plaintiff\u00a0, \u00a0it \u00a0is \u00a0 no\u00a0longer \u00a0open \u00a0to \u00a0re\u00a0<br \/>\nagitate\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0issue\u00a0by\u00a0way\u00a0of\u00a0 \u00a0filing\u00a0the\u00a0suit\u00a0giving\u00a0rise\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0present\u00a0writ\u00a0petition.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Elaborating\u00a0the\u00a0argument,\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0<br \/>\nsubmitted\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0judgement\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Malkahan \u00a0 Singh \u00a0 versus \u00a0 Sohan \u00a0 Singh, \u00a0 1985 \u00a0 RD \u00a0 336,\u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ndecision\u00a0given\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0consolidation\u00a0authority\u00a0will\u00a0operate\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\nres\u00a0judicata\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0section\u00a0\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0U.P\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nHoldings\u00a0Act.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0contra,\u00a0the\u00a0learned\u00a0counsel\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0\u00a0submits\u00a0that\u00a0a\u00a0<br \/>\njudgement\u00a0or\u00a0decree\u00a0based\u00a0on\u00a0compromise\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0a\u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\na\u00a0\u00a0Court\u00a0and\u00a0therefore,\u00a0cannot\u00a0operate\u00a0as\u00a0res\u00a0judicata.\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0other\u00a0<br \/>\nwords, \u00a0 there \u00a0 is \u00a0 no \u00a0 adjudication \u00a0 by \u00a0 a \u00a0 Court \u00a0 \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 cases \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nconsent\u00a0or\u00a0compromise\u00a0decree.\u00a0 \u00a0Reference\u00a0was\u00a0made\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nApex\u00a0Court\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0Pulavarthi\u00a0Venkata\u00a0Subba\u00a0Rao\u00a0versus\u00a0<br \/>\nValluri \u00a0 Jagannatha \u00a0 Rao \u00a0 1967 \u00a0 AIR \u00a0 SC \u00a0 591. \u00a0 \u00a0 It \u00a0 was \u00a0 further\u00a0<br \/>\nsubmitted \u00a0 that \u00a0in \u00a0 view \u00a0 of \u00a0 Section \u00a0 44 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0Evidence \u00a0 Act, \u00a0 a\u00a0<br \/>\njudgement\u00a0obtained\u00a0by\u00a0fraud\u00a0or\u00a0collusion\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0operate\u00a0\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\nres \u00a0adjudicata. \u00a0Asharfi \u00a0Lal\u00a0 versus\u00a0 Smt.Koili\u00a0 \u00a0JT\u00a01995(5) \u00a0S.C\u00a0<br \/>\n496\u00a0 \u00a0and \u00a0A.V.Papayya\u00a0Sastry\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Ors.\u00a0versus\u00a0 \u00a0Government\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nA.P\u00a0\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Ors.\u00a0JT\u00a02007\u00a0(4)\u00a0SC\u00a0186\u00a0were\u00a0relied\u00a0upon.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>Considered\u00a0the\u00a0respective\u00a0submissions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0learned\u00a0counsel\u00a0<br \/>\nfor\u00a0the\u00a0parties\u00a0and\u00a0perused\u00a0the\u00a0record.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0Smt.Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0was\u00a0earlier\u00a0<br \/>\nmarried\u00a0to\u00a0Bhairon\u00a0Bux\u00a0 \u00a0and\u00a0after\u00a0death\u00a0of\u00a0Bhairon\u00a0 \u00a0Bux\u00a0re\u00ad<br \/>\nmarried\u00a0with\u00a0Ram\u00a0Nath,\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0petitioner\u00a0is\u00a0daughter\u00a0of\u00a0Bhairon\u00a0<br \/>\nBux\u00a0 \u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0is\u00a0the\u00a0son\u00a0of\u00a0Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0and\u00a0Ram\u00a0<br \/>\nNath, \u00a0 \u00a0 are \u00a0 not \u00a0 in \u00a0 dispute. \u00a0 \u00a0 It \u00a0 is \u00a0 \u00a0 not \u00a0 disputed \u00a0 that \u00a0 land \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\ndispute\u00a0was\u00a0recorded\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0name\u00a0of\u00a0Smt.\u00a0Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\ntime\u00a0of\u00a0her\u00a0death\u00a0which\u00a0took\u00a0place\u00a0when\u00a0the\u00a0Village\u00a0was\u00a0under\u00a0<br \/>\nconsolidation\u00a0 operation. \u00a0 \u00a0It\u00a0is \u00a0 \u00a0also\u00a0 not\u00a0 in\u00a0 dispute \u00a0 \u00a0 that \u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\npetitioner\u00a0as\u00a0well\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0\u00a0had\u00a0applied\u00a0for\u00a0recording\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\ntheir\u00a0names\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0Authority\u00a0after\u00a0the\u00a0death\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0Smt.\u00a0Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0which\u00a0took\u00a0place\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0year\u00a01977.\u00a0The\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation\u00a0Officer\u00a0passed\u00a0the\u00a0order\u00a0in\u00a0accordance\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\ncompromise\u00a0application,\u00a0ordering\u00a0the\u00a0recording\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0name\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0not\u00a0in\u00a0dispute\u00a0that\u00a0against\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0<br \/>\norder \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Consolidation \u00a0 Officer, \u00a0 a \u00a0 belated \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 was\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>preferred \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 plaintiff \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Settlement \u00a0 officer \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation\u00a0and\u00a0delay\u00a0in\u00a0its\u00a0filing\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0condoned\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\norder \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Settlement \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 of \u00a0 Consolidation \u00a0 \u00a0 was\u00a0<br \/>\nchallenged\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0before\u00a0this\u00a0Court\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0writ\u00a0petition\u00a0<br \/>\nreferred\u00a0to\u00a0above\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0dismissed.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>On \u00a0 these \u00a0 facts \u00a0 which \u00a0 are \u00a0 not \u00a0 in \u00a0 dispute, \u00a0 the \u00a0 question \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\napplicability\u00a0of\u00a0res\u00a0judicata\u00a0is\u00a0in\u00a0issue.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0only\u00a0dispute\u00a0raised\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00ad\u00a0respondent\u00a0herein\u00a0is\u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0he\u00a0did\u00a0not\u00a0sign\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0application\u00a0and\u00a0any\u00a0order\u00a0<br \/>\nobtained\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0compromise\u00a0is\u00a0result\u00a0of\u00a0fraud\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a0as\u00a0such\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0binding,\u00a0on\u00a0him.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0contention\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0hand\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nissue\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0was\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0<br \/>\nwas \u00a0 raised \u00a0 by \u00a0 him \u00a0 and \u00a0 was \u00a0 decided \u00a0 \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Settlement\u00a0<br \/>\nOfficer \u00a0of \u00a0Consolidation \u00a0who \u00a0held \u00a0that \u00a0it \u00a0was \u00a0 signed \u00a0by \u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nplaintiff\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0also\u00a0verified\u00a0by\u00a0his\u00a0counsel.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>       Section\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0U.P.C.H\u00a0Act\u00a0as\u00a0substituted\u00a0by\u00a0U.P\u00a0Act\u00a0<br \/>\n       VIII\u00a01963\u00a0reads\u00a0as\u00a0follows:\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;12. \u00a0 Decision \u00a0 of \u00a0 matters \u00a0 relating \u00a0 to \u00a0 changes \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\n       transactions \u00a0 affecting \u00a0 rights \u00a0 or \u00a0 interests \u00a0 recorded \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\n       revised\u00a0records:\u00a0(1)\u00a0All\u00a0matters\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0changes\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\n       transfers\u00a0affecting\u00a0any\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0rights\u00a0or\u00a0interests\u00a0recorded\u00a0<br \/>\n       in\u00a0the\u00a0revised\u00a0records\u00a0published\u00a0under\u00a0sub\u00a0\u00adsection\u00a0(1)\u00a0<br \/>\n       of\u00a0Section\u00a010\u00a0for\u00a0which\u00a0a\u00a0cause\u00a0of\u00a0action\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0arisen\u00a0<br \/>\n       when\u00a0proceedings\u00a0\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a07\u00a0to\u00a09\u00a0were\u00a0started\u00a0or\u00a0<br \/>\n       were \u00a0 in \u00a0 progress, \u00a0 may \u00a0 be \u00a0 raised \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Assistant\u00a0<br \/>\n       Consolidation \u00a0 Officer\u00a0 as \u00a0 and\u00a0when\u00a0they \u00a0arise, \u00a0but \u00a0not\u00a0<br \/>\n       later\u00a0than\u00a0the\u00a0date\u00a0of\u00a0notification\u00a0 \u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a052,\u00a0or\u00a0<br \/>\n       under\u00a0sub\u00a0section\u00a0(1)\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a06.\n<\/p>\n<p>       (2) \u00a0 The \u00a0 provisions \u00a0 of \u00a0 \u00a0 Section \u00a0 7 \u00a0 to \u00a0 11 \u00a0 shall \u00a0 mutatis\u00a0<br \/>\n       mutandis, \u00a0 apply \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 and \u00a0 decision \u00a0 of \u00a0 any\u00a0<br \/>\n       matter\u00a0raised\u00a0under\u00a0sub\u00a0section\u00a0(1)\u00a0as\u00a0if\u00a0it\u00a0were\u00a0a\u00a0matter\u00a0<br \/>\n       raised\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0aforesaid\u00a0sections.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0above\u00a0section\u00a0came\u00a0up\u00a0for\u00a0consideration\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0<br \/>\nCourt\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0Malkhan\u00a0Singh\u00a0(Supra).\u00a0\u00a0After\u00a0noticing\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nchanges \u00a0 brought \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 substituted \u00a0 section, \u00a0 the \u00a0 Apex \u00a0Court\u00a0<br \/>\nheld\u00a0that\u00a0 \u00a0Sections\u00a07\u00a0to\u00a011\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0deal\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0rights\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\ntitle \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 tenure \u00a0 holder \u00a0 and \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 application \u00a0 of \u00a0 these\u00a0<br \/>\nprovisions\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0proceedings\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a012\u00a0in\u00a0matters\u00a0too\u00a0<br \/>\nfor\u00a0which\u00a0cause\u00a0of\u00a0action\u00a0had\u00a0arisen\u00a0subsequently\u00a0will\u00a0make\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0decision\u00a0a\u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0title.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0has\u00a0clarified\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0position\u00a0<br \/>\nprior\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0amendment\u00a0of\u00a01963\u00a0was\u00a0different\u00a0as\u00a0there\u00a0was\u00a0no\u00a0<br \/>\nprovision\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0adjudication\u00a0of\u00a0rights\u00a0title\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0tenure\u00a0holder.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>On\u00a0the\u00a0facts\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case,\u00a0it\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0noticed\u00a0that\u00a0after\u00a0<br \/>\ndeath\u00a0of\u00a0Smt.Samudra\u00a0Devi,\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0denotification\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nVillage\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a052\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0of\u00a0Holdings\u00a0Act,\u00a0<br \/>\na \u00a0 dispute \u00a0had \u00a0arisen \u00a0in\u00a0 between \u00a0the \u00a0petitioner \u00a0(daughter \u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nBhairon \u00a0 Bux) \u00a0 and \u00a0 \u00a0 Bharat \u00a0 Lal(Plaintiff) \u00a0 with \u00a0 regard \u00a0 to \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nsuccession \u00a0 and \u00a0 inheritance \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 disputed \u00a0 land \u00a0 left \u00a0 by\u00a0<br \/>\nSmt.Samudra \u00a0 Devi, \u00a0 deceased, \u00a0 \u00a0 under \u00a0 section \u00a0 12 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Act.\u00a0<br \/>\nThe \u00a0 matter \u00a0 was \u00a0 referred \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 Consolidation \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 for\u00a0<br \/>\nadjudication, \u00a0 before \u00a0 whom \u00a0 a \u00a0 compromise \u00a0 application\u00a0<br \/>\npurported \u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0duly\u00a0verified\u00a0and\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0parties\u00a0was\u00a0<br \/>\nfiled.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0Officer\u00a0ordered\u00a0the\u00a0recording\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nname \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner. \u00a0 \u00a0 Consequently, \u00a0 the \u00a0 \u00a0 name \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\npetitioner\u00a0was\u00a0recorded.\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0other\u00a0words,\u00a0the\u00a0application\u00a0filed\u00a0<br \/>\nby\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0for\u00a0recording\u00a0his\u00a0name\u00a0met\u00a0with\u00a0no\u00a0success\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nview\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0terms\u00a0of\u00a0compromise,\u00a0he\u00a0agreed\u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0the\u00a0name\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0pettioner\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0ordered\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0recorded.\u00a0<br \/>\nThe \u00a0 plaintiff\u00a0 kept \u00a0 quiet \u00a0 \u00a0 over \u00a0 the \u00a0 matter. \u00a0 \u00a0 Subsequently, \u00a0 he\u00a0<br \/>\npreferred \u00a0 a \u00a0 belated \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Settlement \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 disputing \u00a0 his \u00a0 signatures \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 said\u00a0<br \/>\ncompromise.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0issue\u00a0thus\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Settlement\u00a0Officer\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation \u00a0 was \u00a0 whether \u00a0 the \u00a0 compromise \u00a0 contains \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>signatures\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0or\u00a0not.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0evidence\u00a0was\u00a0led\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nparties\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0examined\u00a0himself.\u00a0\u00a0His\u00a0Counsel\u00a0\u00a0Ram\u00a0<br \/>\nBahadur\u00a0Singh\u00a0Advocte\u00a0was\u00a0also\u00a0examined.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0Settlement\u00a0<br \/>\nOfficer \u00a0 of \u00a0 Consolidation \u00a0 by \u00a0 his \u00a0 order \u00a0 dated \u00a0 11.4.1979\u00a0<br \/>\nconsidered\u00a0the\u00a0evidence\u00a0on\u00a0record\u00a0 \u00a0and\u00a0reached\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0definite\u00a0<br \/>\nconclusion,\u00a0 \u00a0after\u00a0taking\u00a0note\u00a0of\u00a0signatures\u00a0of\u00a0Ram\u00a0Bahadur\u00a0<br \/>\nSingh, \u00a0 Advocate \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 order \u00a0 sheet \u00a0 dated \u00a0 2.1.1978 \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\n10.1.1978 \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 compromise \u00a0 was \u00a0 signed \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 plaintiff\u00a0<br \/>\nwhich\u00a0was\u00a0verified\u00a0by\u00a0his\u00a0counsel\u00a0 \u00a0Shri\u00a0Ram\u00a0Bahadur\u00a0Singh,\u00a0<br \/>\nAdvocate. \u00a0 The \u00a0 writ \u00a0 petition \u00a0 was \u00a0 dismissed \u00a0 against \u00a0 the \u00a0 said\u00a0<br \/>\norder.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0order\u00a0on\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0writ\u00a0petition\u00a0reads\u00a0as\u00a0follows:\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;It\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0a\u00a0fit\u00a0case\u00a0for\u00a0interference\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0impugned\u00a0<br \/>\njudgment \u00a0 when \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner \u00a0 allegedly \u00a0 has \u00a0 entered \u00a0 into \u00a0 a\u00a0<br \/>\ncompromise\u00a0and\u00a0a\u00a0counsel\u00a0has\u00a0identified\u00a0his\u00a0signature.\u00a0 \u00a0I\u00a0do\u00a0<br \/>\nnot\u00a0see\u00a0any\u00a0good\u00a0ground\u00a0to\u00a0interfere.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>       The\u00a0writ\u00a0petition\u00a0is\u00a0dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It\u00a0therefore\u00a0follows\u00a0that\u00a0issue\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0<br \/>\nwas\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0or\u00a0not\u00a0was\u00a0raised\u00a0earlier\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nconsolidation\u00a0authorities\u00a0and\u00a0was\u00a0decided\u00a0on\u00a0merits\u00a0by\u00a0them.\u00a0<br \/>\nThe\u00a0said\u00a0issue\u00a0now\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0permitted\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0\u00a0raised\u00a0again\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nview\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a011\u00a0of\u00a0CPC.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0consolidation\u00a0authorities\u00a0were\u00a0<br \/>\nnot\u00a0only\u00a0competent\u00a0but\u00a0were\u00a0obliged\u00a0to\u00a0decide\u00a0all\u00a0the\u00a0issues\u00a0<br \/>\nrelating\u00a0to\u00a0right,\u00a0title\u00a0and\u00a0interest \u00a0 \u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0parties\u00a0which \u00a0had\u00a0<br \/>\narisen\u00a0after\u00a0the\u00a0name\u00a0of\u00a0Smt.Samudra\u00a0Devi\u00a0on\u00a0account\u00a0of\u00a0her\u00a0<br \/>\ndeath,\u00a0but\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0date\u00a0of\u00a0notification\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a052\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0Act\u00a0as\u00a0provided\u00a0for\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Apex\u00a0<br \/>\nCourt\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0 \u00a0Malkhan\u00a0Singh\u00a0(Supra) \u00a0has\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0a\u00a0<br \/>\ndecision\u00a0given\u00a0in\u00a0such\u00a0fact\u00a0situation\u00a0will\u00a0\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0decision\u00a0under\u00a0<br \/>\nsection\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0and\u00a0it\u00a0will\u00a0be\u00a0decision\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0rights,\u00a0title\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a0interest\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0parties.\u00a0 \u00a0On\u00a0such\u00a0decision\u00a0no\u00a0other\u00a0Court\u00a0<br \/>\ncan\u00a0adjudicate\u00a0upon\u00a0subsequently,\u00a0as\u00a0provided\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a0<br \/>\n49\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>Looked\u00a0from\u00a0another\u00a0angle.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0was\u00a0open\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0to\u00a0have\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>kept\u00a0the\u00a0track\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0objections\/application\u00a0for\u00a0recording\u00a0his\u00a0<br \/>\nname\u00a0in\u00a0place\u00a0of\u00a0Smt.Samudra\u00a0Devi.\u00a0\u00a0Even\u00a0if\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0<br \/>\nin\u00a0question\u00a0is\u00a0put\u00a0aside,\u00a0\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0sake\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0argument,\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0<br \/>\nremains\u00a0that\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0consolidation\u00a0operation,\u00a0the\u00a0name\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0ordered\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0recorded.\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0this\u00a0regard,\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nplaintiff\u00a0could\u00a0or\u00a0ought\u00a0to\u00a0have\u00a0taken\u00a0proceedings\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nConsolidation \u00a0 of \u00a0 Holding \u00a0 Act \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 consolidation\u00a0<br \/>\nauthorities \u00a0 but \u00a0 he \u00a0 failed \u00a0 to \u00a0 do \u00a0 so. \u00a0 \u00a0 In \u00a0 view \u00a0 of \u00a0 section \u00a0 49 \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nU.P.C.H \u00a0 Act, \u00a0 the \u00a0 jurisdiction \u00a0 of \u00a0 Civil \u00a0 or \u00a0 Revenue \u00a0 Court \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\nentertain\u00a0any\u00a0such\u00a0suit\u00a0or\u00a0proceeding\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0to\u00a0rights\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0disputed\u00a0land\u00a0is\u00a0barred.\u00a0\u00a0Although\u00a0issue\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0bar\u00a0by\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a049\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0separate\u00a0issue\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0decided\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0suit,\u00a0but\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nfact\u00a0remains\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff&#8217;s\u00a0claim\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0suit\u00a0will\u00a0be\u00a0barred\u00a0<br \/>\nby\u00a0constructive\u00a0res\u00a0judicata\u00a0if\u00a0for\u00a0a\u00a0moment,\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0<br \/>\nin\u00a0question\u00a0is\u00a0put\u00a0apart.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Under\u00a0section\u00a011\u00a0of\u00a0CPC\u00a0also,\u00a0vide\u00a0<br \/>\nExp.IV \u00a0 to \u00a0 Section \u00a0 11, \u00a0 any \u00a0 matter \u00a0 which \u00a0 might \u00a0and \u00a0 ought \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\nhave\u00a0been\u00a0 \u00a0made\u00a0ground\u00a0of\u00a0defence\u00a0or\u00a0attack\u00a0in\u00a0such\u00a0former\u00a0<br \/>\nsuit \u00a0 shall \u00a0 be \u00a0 deemed \u00a0 to \u00a0 have \u00a0 a \u00a0 matter \u00a0 directly \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\nsubstantially\u00a0in\u00a0issue\u00a0,\u00a0in\u00a0such\u00a0suit.\u00a0 \u00a0Looked\u00a0from\u00a0any\u00a0angle,\u00a0<br \/>\nthis\u00a0Court\u00a0is\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0considered\u00a0opinion\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0suit\u00a0is\u00a0<br \/>\nbarred\u00a0by\u00a0res\u00a0judicata.\n<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0Trial\u00a0Court\u00a0without\u00a0recording\u00a0any\u00a0reason,\u00a0proceeded\u00a0with\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0case \u00a0that \u00a0section \u00a011 \u00a0of \u00a0CPC \u00a0is \u00a0not\u00a0applicable. \u00a0 \u00a0The \u00a0 first\u00a0<br \/>\nappellate\u00a0Court\u00a0proceeded\u00a0to\u00a0answer\u00a0it\u00a0on\u00a0wrong\u00a0footing\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0proceeding\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0Authorities\u00a0were\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0nature\u00a0of\u00a0mutation\u00a0proceedings.\u00a0 \u00a0It\u00a0overlooked\u00a0amended\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0U.P.C.H.Act\u00a0and\u00a0failed\u00a0to\u00a0notice\u00a0that\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0<br \/>\na \u00a0 material \u00a0 difference \u00a0 in \u00a0 between \u00a0 mutation \u00a0 proceedings \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\nproceeding\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act.\u00a0\u00a0Mutation\u00a0proceeding\u00a0<br \/>\nas\u00a0envisaged\u00a0by\u00a0Section\u00a034\u00a0of\u00a0U.P\u00a0Land\u00a0Revenue\u00a0Act\u00a0is\u00a0subject\u00a0<br \/>\nto \u00a0 regular \u00a0 suit, \u00a0 which \u00a0 is \u00a0 not \u00a0 so \u00a0 far \u00a0 as \u00a0 decision \u00a0 given \u00a0 under\u00a0<br \/>\nsection \u00a0 12 \u00a0 of \u00a0 \u00a0 the \u00a0 Act \u00a0 is \u00a0 concerned. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 position \u00a0 of \u00a0 under\u00a0<br \/>\nsection\u00a012\u00a0 of\u00a0 \u00a0 the \u00a0Act\u00a0 is \u00a0just \u00a0reverse. \u00a0 \u00a0Decision\u00a0given \u00a0under\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>section\u00a012\u00a0 of\u00a0the \u00a0Act \u00a0bars\u00a0 \u00a0subsequent\u00a0suit \u00a0before\u00a0a \u00a0regular\u00a0<br \/>\nCourt,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Civil\u00a0or\u00a0Revenue.\u00a0\u00a0A\u00a0decision\u00a0given\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a012\u00a0is\u00a0<br \/>\nnot\u00a0a\u00a0mere\u00a0mutation\u00a0order\u00a0but\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0final\u00a0order\u00a0deciding\u00a0finally\u00a0<br \/>\ntitle \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 parties \u00a0 \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 proceedings. \u00a0 \u00a0 In \u00a0 other \u00a0 words, \u00a0 a\u00a0<br \/>\ndecision\u00a0under\u00a0section\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0decision\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0the\u00a0title.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0above\u00a0view\u00a0finds\u00a0support\u00a0\u00a0from\u00a0Section\u00a012(2)\u00a0<br \/>\nof \u00a0 the \u00a0 Act \u00a0 which \u00a0 provides \u00a0 that \u00a0 such \u00a0 proceeding \u00a0 shall \u00a0 be\u00a0<br \/>\ndecided\u00a0in\u00a0accordance\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0provisions\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a07\u00a0to\u00a011\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0Act.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore,\u00a0the\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0appellate\u00a0Court\u00a0\u00a0being\u00a0<br \/>\ncontrary \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 decision \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Apex \u00a0 Court \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 case \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nMalkhan\u00a0Singh\u00a0\u00a0(Supra)\u00a0\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0approved.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0judgement\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Board\u00a0of\u00a0Revenue\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0if\u00a0a\u00a0<br \/>\njudgement \u00a0 is \u00a0 obtained \u00a0 by \u00a0 fraud, \u00a0 the \u00a0 said \u00a0 judgment \u00a0 will \u00a0 not\u00a0<br \/>\noperate\u00a0as\u00a0res\u00a0judicata.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0\u00a0even\u00a0cared\u00a0to\u00a0glance\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nvery\u00a0basis\u00a0which\u00a0was\u00a0\u00a0available\u00a0\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0record\u00a0i.e\u00a0the\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0Settlement\u00a0of\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0 \u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0judgement \u00a0of\u00a0 \u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nHigh \u00a0 Court \u00a0 in \u00a0the \u00a0 writ \u00a0petition. \u00a0 \u00a0 It\u00a0 further \u00a0appears \u00a0 that \u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nattention \u00a0 of\u00a0 the \u00a0Court \u00a0 was \u00a0not \u00a0brought \u00a0 to\u00a0 the \u00a0provisions \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>It\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0noticed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0sole\u00a0contention\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0is\u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0the\u00a0compromise\u00a0application\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0him,\u00a0a\u00a0fact\u00a0<br \/>\nwhich\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0accepted\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0correct\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Settlement\u00a0<br \/>\nofficer\u00a0of\u00a0Consolidation.\u00a0 \u00a0This\u00a0being\u00a0so,\u00a0obviously\u00a0the\u00a0plea\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nfraud\u00a0vanishes.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>As\u00a0noticed\u00a0herein\u00a0above,\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0absolutely\u00a0no\u00a0explanation\u00a0\u00a0on\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0part\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0to\u00a0come\u00a0out\u00a0of\u00a0grip\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nU.P.C.H.Act.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0fact\u00a0remains\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0aware\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\ndeath \u00a0of\u00a0 Samudra \u00a0Devi \u00a0as \u00a0also \u00a0the \u00a0 fact\u00a0 that \u00a0the \u00a0Village\u00a0 was\u00a0<br \/>\nunder \u00a0 consolidation \u00a0 operation \u00a0 at \u00a0 the \u00a0 relevant \u00a0 point \u00a0 of \u00a0 time\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner&#8217;s\u00a0name\u00a0was\u00a0ordered\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0recorded\u00a0by\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0Authorities.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0<br \/>\nAuthorities \u00a0 \u00a0 cannot \u00a0 be \u00a0 challenged \u00a0 \u00a0 subsequently \u00a0 by \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nplaintiff\u00a0as\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0well\u00a0aware\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0same.\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0other\u00a0words\u00a0he\u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n<p>was \u00a0 aware \u00a0 about \u00a0 the \u00a0 true \u00a0 state \u00a0 of \u00a0 affairs \u00a0 and \u00a0 in \u00a0 this \u00a0 fact\u00a0<br \/>\nsituation\u00a0plea\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0fraud\u00a0can\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0put\u00a0forward.\u00a0He\u00a0should\u00a0have\u00a0<br \/>\ntaken\u00a0appropriate\u00a0steps\u00a0to\u00a0get\u00a0his\u00a0name\u00a0recorded\u00a0by\u00a0invoking\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a012\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0failed\u00a0to\u00a0do\u00a0so.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>The \u00a0 decisions \u00a0 relied \u00a0 upon \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 learned \u00a0 counsel \u00a0 for \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nplaintiff\u00a0\u00a0are\u00a0besides\u00a0the\u00a0points\u00a0and\u00a0are\u00a0not\u00a0\u00a0applicable\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nfacts\u00a0as\u00a0obtained\u00a0herein.\u00a0\u00a0They\u00a0were\u00a0rendered\u00a0under\u00a0a\u00a0different\u00a0<br \/>\nfactual\u00a0matrix.\u00a0 \u00a0A\u00a0compromise\u00a0decree\u00a0may\u00a0not\u00a0operate\u00a0as\u00a0res\u00a0<br \/>\njudicata\u00a0but\u00a0if\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0compromise\u00a0\u00a0was\u00a0sought\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0assailed\u00a0<br \/>\nin\u00a0appeal,\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0ground\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0one\u00a0party,\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a0the\u00a0Court\u00a0comes\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0conclusion\u00a0as\u00a0found\u00a0herein,\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0<br \/>\nwas\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0all\u00a0the\u00a0parties,\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0suit\u00a0will\u00a0be\u00a0barred\u00a0by\u00a0<br \/>\nres\u00a0judicata.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>In \u00a0 view \u00a0 of \u00a0 above \u00a0 discussions, \u00a0 I \u00a0 find \u00a0 sufficient \u00a0 force \u00a0 in \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\npetition\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0impugned\u00a0orders\u00a0\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0sustained.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0<br \/>\nwrit \u00a0 petition \u00a0 therefore \u00a0 succeeds \u00a0 and \u00a0 is \u00a0 allowed. \u00a0 \u00a0 The\u00a0<br \/>\nimpugned\u00a0orders\u00a0are\u00a0hereby\u00a0set\u00a0aside\u00a0and\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nsuit\u00a0is\u00a0barred\u00a0by\u00a0res\u00a0judicata\u00a0and\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0accordingly\u00a0dismissed\u00a0<br \/>\nwith\u00a0costs\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.5000\/\u00ad\u00a0(\u00a0five\u00a0thousand\u00a0)\u00a0payable\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00a0<br \/>\nto\u00a0the\u00a0petitioner&#8217;s\u00a0heirs.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0                                    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(Prakash\u00a0Krishna,J)<br \/>\nOrder\u00a0Date\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0\u00a02.7.2010<br \/>\nIB\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 1 A.F.R Reserved\/Court\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a06 Case\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0WRIT\u00a0\u00ad\u00a0B\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a06068\u00a0of\u00a01992 Petitioner\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Smt.\u00a0Bhagwan\u00a0Dei Respondent\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Board\u00a0Of\u00a0Revenue\u00a0Alld.\u00a0And\u00a0Ors. Petitioner\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0V.D.\u00a0Ojha Respondent\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0V.B.L.\u00a0Srivastava,Arun\u00a0Kumar,B.K.\u00a0 Srivastava,Govind\u00a0Krishan,R.K.\u00a0Srivastava,R.K.\u00a0Tripathi,R.S.\u00a0 Mishra,Radhey\u00a0Shyam,S.C.,Sushil\u00a0Jaiswal,Tripathi\u00a0 B.G.Bhai,V.K.\u00a0Singh,Vinod\u00a0Krishna Hon&#8217;ble\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Krishna,J. This\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0second\u00a0round\u00a0of\u00a0litigation\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0High\u00a0Court.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0only\u00a0 point \u00a0 mooted \u00a0 presently \u00a0 is \u00a0 whether \u00a0 the \u00a0 issue \u00a0 sought \u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0 raised\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff\u00adrespondent\u00a0herein\u00a0is\u00a0barred\u00a0by\u00a0section\u00a0 11\u00a0of\u00a0CPC\u00a0 \u00a0or\u00a0not.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0background\u00a0facts\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0noticed\u00a0in\u00a0 brief: Bhairon [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-09T07:35:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T07:35:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3015,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T07:35:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-09T07:35:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T07:35:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010"},"wordCount":3015,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010","name":"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T07:35:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-bhagwan-dei-vs-board-of-revenue-alld-and-ors-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Bhagwan Dei vs Board Of Revenue Alld. And Ors. on 2 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}