AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition arises out of a dispute relating to the claim of petitioners on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed on 22nd June, 2006 by the tenure-holder Sri Sabir who is stated to have died on 23rd August, 2006.
(2.) SRI Siddharth Nandan learned counsel for the respondents 4, 5 and 6 contends that the petitioners have virtually purchased litigation and they are now trying to rake the issue after 17 years of the matter having been closed under a compromise dated 5.12.1985. Sri Siddharth Nandan submits that the factum of the compromise could not be disproved and as a matter of fact it relates only to Plot No. 819 which concerns respondents 7 and 8 and not the petitioners. He further contends that the entire litigation which has been instigated on the highly time barred appeal filed by Sabir, in which the petitioners have got themselves impleaded and substituted, relates only to Plot No. 819 and not with regard to the sale deeds in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 and the land belonging to them. In such a situation, the petitioners through this litigation cannot forestal the payment of compensation to the answering respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 who have their independent title over the land through separate sale deeds and which nowhere concerns the petitioners.
(3.) IT is further submitted that the sale deeds which have been executed in favour of the answering respondents were not even under challenge and it was only the order of compromise which was being disputed by late Sabir through a heavily time barred appeal in which the petitioners have now got themselves inserted after having virtually purchased the litigation from Sabir. He therefore submits that even otherwise the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, does not call for any interference.;