- (1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks quashed of order dated 21-3-1991 (Annexure V to the writ petition) passed by the Respondents No. 2 and the order dated 26-6-1991 (Annexure-VIII) passed by the Respondent no 1.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case in short is that the Petitioner and the Respondents No. 4 to 6 filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of plot No. 823 and 848 situate in village Dora, pargana Saidpur, district Ghazipur which was included in the town area with effect from 25-10-1971. The objection was filed beyond time, but an application for condonation of delay was also filed along with the objection dated 15-12-1989. It is alleged that a compromise was entered into between the parties on 6-3-1990 and the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 20-4-1990 condoned the delay in filing the objection and decided it in terms of the alleged compromise. The recorded tenure holder Mst. Reshma Kunwar preferred an appeal on 31-1-1991, inter alia, on the ground that she was not party to the compromise and that the order of the Consolidation Officer was passed behind her back and without notice to her and she came to know of the order passed by the consolidation officer only on 31-1-1991 on the basis of Intkhab (extract of khatauni). In ground no 11, it was stated by her that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal was within time, but if in the opinion of the court it was found to be belated, she might be given benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation further held that the compromise was fraudulent and that the 3rd Respondent was not a party to the compromise The Settlement Officer Consolidation further held that the land in dispute being situate in the town area, the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were not attracted and therefore, the Consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by order dated 26-6-1991. The findings as to the fraudulent nature of the compromise and the applicability of the provisions of the UP CH Act to the land in dispute as recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation were maintained by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V. C. Misra, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 3, Respondents No. 4 to 6 are proforma, whereas Respondents No. 1 and 2 are formal parties. Accordingly with the consent of the parties counsel I propose to decide the writ petition at the admission stage without issuing notice to Respondents No. 4 to 6, who have common interert with the Petitioner.;