VIKRAM NATH,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 2.1.1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria whereby he allowed the revision filed by the respondents nos.2 to 4 and after setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.2.1973 maintained the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 9.10.1972, rejecting the objections of the petitioners.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the land comprised in Khata No.6 and Khata No.82 of Village Badhia Hardo, Tappa Dond, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, District Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute). In the basic year records the names of Kashi, Bali Ram and Udai Bhan sons of Ram Bachan Singh (respondent nos.2 to 4) were recorded. The petitioners filed objections claiming co-tenancy rights in the land in dispute of the two khatas and subsequently by way of amendment they also claimed exclusive rights over certain plots of the said khatas. The objections were based upon a compromise decree dated 17.6.1969 in a revenue suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Z.A. Act), registered as Case No.316 of 1969, Kedar Singh vs. Kashi and others. According to the petitioners the said compromise decree dated 17.6.1969, having attained finality between the parties, was binding on the parties and under the said compromise the petitioners having been given co-tenancy rights and also exclusive rights over the plots claimed by them, the entries of the basic year should be corrected as per the compromise decree. These objections were registered as Case Nos.2045 and 2046, Saudagar Singh vs. Kashi and others, under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the C.H. Act). The respondent nos.2 to 4 filed their written statement denying the claim of the petitioners. According to the respondents no compromise was ever executed by them in Case No.316 of 1969.
(3.) BOTH parties led evidence in support of their respective arguments. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 9.10.1972 inter alia recorded the following findings: The petitioners had failed to establish the compromise; the alleged compromise deed did not record the statement that the respondents had admitted the petitioners to be their co-tenants; the record of the alleged compromise of the other villages had not been produced. Accordingly the Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the petitioners and maintained the basic year's entries.;