K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to plot No. 21 of village Bajpai Khera -measuring 8 bigha 5 biswas and 10 biswansis. This plot was entered in the basic year khatauni as Banjar. The Petitioner preferred an objection before the Consolidation Authorities claiming that he was in adverse possession over an area of 5 bigha 13 biswas and 18 biswansis situate in the eastern portion and that his trees also stood over that portion. His case was that he had acquired bhumidhari rights and in the alternative, sirdari rights over the said plot. Opposite party No. 5 namely R.R.B.N. Inter College, filed a claim contending that the Institution was the owner of the land in question. So far as the land on which the institution's buildings and play ground were situated, the Petitioner did not contest the same. The dispute remained only about the rest of the land. As regards the said remainder, an alleged compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer which was signed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and by the Petitioner. In this compromise application dated 20 -5 -72 it is recited that on 21 -9 -71 the Gaon Sabha had passed a resolution to the effect that the land in question should be allowed to be recorded in the name of the Petitioner and that Gaon Sabha had no objection to it. In para 11 of this application it was mentioned that the Petitioner had been in adverse possession over the said area for a long time and that his trees also stood on that land. Thus, the basis of the compromise was the alleged adverse possession of the Petitioner for a long period and his being allegedly the owner of the trees thereon. The compromise was filed without obtaining prior permission of the Sub -Divisional Officer, but according to the Petitioner, the Sub -Divisional Officer's permission was obtained on 11 -7 -72. The Consolidation Officer rejected the compromise petition on the ground that it has been filed even before the permission had been obtained. On merits he found that his local inspection revealed that the disputed land, which was 4 bighas 15 biswas and 10 biswansis in area, had fifteen Neem trees, one Peepal tree, two Mahua trees, and one banyan tree which were stated to be about sixty years old. A rasta for Bhagwant Nagar town also ran through this plot. The trees were scattered and there was no Khai, so that the land could be treated to be a grove. Thus on merits he found no substance in the Petitioner's claim and it was rejected. The Petitioner preferred an appeal, and before the appellate court, a compromise dated 22 -9 -72 in like terms was filed on the basis of the alleged permission of the Sub -Divisional Officer referred to above. The Settlement Officer's Order has not been filed, but it is not disputed that the Settlement Officer also did not accept the compromise and he upheld the Order of the Consolidation Officer. The Dy. Director also affirmed the decision of the two courts below. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The petition has been contested on behalf of Gaon Sabha. According to Gaon Sabha there was no record available of any permission having been actually granted by the Sub -Divisional Officer. It has also been asserted that the Petitioner had no title whatsoever.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.;