2025:UHC:742 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.558 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 11 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 challenging the order dated 11.01.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the aforesaid Act. The said Appeal was registered as Appeal No.556 of 1996/1997. In the said Appeal, a compromise deed was filed by the parties to the Appeal, signed by all the parties, including the petitioner and it was mentioned in the said deed that the share, as determined by the Consolidation Officer, is correct and all the share holders are in possession of their respective shares, therefore, there is no need of any change in the order passed by Consolidation Officer. Before the Appeal could be decided in terms of the compromise, learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the Appeal for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.12.1997. Petitioner filed a restoration application, which was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 10.05.2001. Respondent challenged the order dated 10.05.2001 by filing Revision Petition before Deputy Director, 2025:UHC:742 Consolidation, which was dismissed on 10.07.2002. Respondent, thereafter, challenged the order passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation in Writ Petition (M/S) No.546 of 2002, which too was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2004 and Coordinate Bench directed the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal on merits. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.08.2008 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, whereby her Appeal has been dismissed based on the compromise deed dated 26.11.1996, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation in Revision No.304/2012-2013. 3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had moved an application before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 10.05.2001 stating that petitioner wants the Appeal to be decided on merits and she does not want any order to be passed on the compromise deed dated 26.11.1996; respondents wanted to obtain order by deceitful means, therefore, petitioner wants the Appeal to be decided on merits and not based on compromise. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the said application was neither considered nor disposed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation erred in law in deciding the Appeal based on the compromise which was sought to be retracted by the petitioner. He further submits that the key component of a compromise is willingness of the parties and if a party to the compromise expresses unwillingness for decision of the dispute based on the 2025:UHC:742 compromise, then it is incumbent upon the Court concerned to decide the case on merits and not based on compromise. 4. Per contra, Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, a sale deed was executed by the respondents in favour of petitioner on 22.11.1996, therefore, the compromise was acted upon, thus, petitioner was estopped from resiling from the compromise. 5. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner paid ₹8,000/- as consideration for the land purchased by him by means of sale deed dated 22.11.1996. He further submits that there is no nexus between the compromise deed dated 26.11.1996 and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and it was a voluntary transaction independent of the compromise. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Once a party to the dispute says that he or she wants to retract from the compromise by stating that the compromise was obtained by fraud, and wants decision of the dispute on merits, then Settlement Officer, Consolidation had no occasion to dismiss the Appeal, based on such compromise. 7. On this short point alone, the impugned order dated 13.08.2008 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order dated 2025:UHC:742 21.11.2013 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the Appeal on merits. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.02.2025 Arpan 2025:UHC:742