K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 23-7-79 whereby the revisional court has dealt with revisions nos. 3 and 52.
(2.) Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that plot no. 818 measuring 7.18 acres is a part of khata no. 132 and 2 biswa area of plot no. 818 is a part of khata no. 147. So far as the area of the aforesaid plot no. 818 in khata no. 147 is concerned. It has been alleged by the petitioners that the parties have got one biswa each according to their share. As regards 7.18 acre of plot no. 818 of khata no. 151 is concerned it has been stated before me by the petitioners that he has got 3.14 acres and the contesting opposite parties have got 0.5acres as their Sahan and about the remaining 3.14 acres they have got the area in exchange. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the parties had agreed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and he had accepted the agreement and divided the disputed plot no. 818 as indicated above. After lapes of several years an application under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been moved by the contesting opposite parties and also an appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was preferred which was dismissed by the appellate authority and the Consolidation Officer had also rejected the prayer of opposite parties under Section 42-A of the Act through his order dated 16-10-1978. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16-10-1978 and by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer of the year 1967 and the appellate order dated 10-1-79 the opposite parties preferred two revision petitions which have been decided through the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 23-7-79. How the petitioners feeling aggrieved the order of the revisional court has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the order of the revisional court is patently erroneous as the revisional court has not dealt with the question that the appeal filed by the contesting opposite parties was much beyond time and the revisional court has unnecessarily referred to the compromise and has applied Rule 25-A to the circumstances of the present case and has thereby reopened the dispute between the parties. The learned counsel for petitioner apprehends that now the Consolidation Officer would only decide the claim of the party with regard to the area in his possession i.e., 05 acres land in possession of opposite parties as Sehan and would not lake into account the area in lieu whereof the contesting opposite parties have got other area at the time of allotment of chak.;