K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 29-5-81 (Annexure '3' attached with the writ petition).
(2.) THE main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the appellate authority did not condone the delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment of the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the ground that more than' three years had elapsed and the chaks were carved out and the appellants knew about the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the revisional court has not specifically set aside the finding recorded by the appellate court. I have gone through the impugned judgment. I find that the revisional court has applied its mind and has taken a different view than the view taken by the appellate authority on the question of limitation. Since the revisional court has condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, I think that it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the judgment of the revisional court with a view to enable the petitioner, to raise a technical plea. The powers of the revisional court under section 48 of the UP CH Act are wide. It can interfere with incorrect, illegal and improper findings recorded by the subordinate authorities. In the present case the revisional court has given cogent reasons for condoning the delay in preferring appeal. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the appellants had signed the compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and it was not necessary to obtain their signatures, or the signature of the members of the consolidation committee on the judgment. According to Rule 25-A of the UP CH Act it is necessary that the Asstt. Consolidation Officer should read over the terms of the compromise to the parties and should get their signatures of thumb impressions over the compromise.
(3.) THE perusal of the compromise indicates that it does not bear the signatures of all the co-sharers hence the compromise is not in accordance with law, and if that compromise has not been recognised by the revisional court I do not think that any manifest injustice has occurred to the petitioners. The revisional court has sent the case back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claims of the parties in accordance with the pleadings and it has also been indicated that proper issues should be framed! and evidence should be accepted. It appears that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the shares in the disputed land, hence, in my opinion, the impugned order of the revisional court has done substantial justice between the parties as it has afforded an opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and get a decision on merits.;