Sudhir Narain - (1.) THE present writ petition has been directed against the order dated 20-6-86, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer the respondent no. 2, the order dated 24-12-91 and the order dated 13-4-92 passed by the Board of Revenue, the Respondent no. 1.
(2.) THE dispute was raised in [respect of plot No. 687/2 area .26 situate an village Ishri, Pargana Sikandarpur Garvi, Tehsil Rasra, Distt. Ballia. This plot has been given new numbers as 270 area .24 and plot no. 274 area 1 chemical. THE plot No. 687/2 was recorded in the name of Shiv Ji Maharaj, a deity. The case of the petitioners is that a suit under section 229-B and 209 of UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed in the year 1960 by Shiv Ji Maharaj, a deity, through its Sarvarakars namely. Ambika Singh, Durga Singh sons of Ram Raj Singh, Radha Singh s/o Ram Surat Singh Vidya Dhar Singh, Banshidhar Singh, Murlidhar Singh and Rikhdeo Singh alias Bhola Singh sons of Mangla Singh against Muneshar Singh. Along with the suit a compromise was also filed between the parties wherein plaintiffs accepted Muneshar Singh as adhivasi of the land in question. The compromise application was filed on 9-3-60 and in pursuance of the said compromise application a decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 16-3-60. After the compromise decree was passed, the name of Muneshar Singh was mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently an application was filed on 24-10-75 by Vidyadhar Singh, Murlidhar Singh, Bansidhar Singh, Rakhdeo Singh and Radha Singh to set aside the compromise decree on the allegation that fraud was practiced upon court in collusion with Ambika Singh and Durga Singh and without any notice to the applicants the decree was obtained. They tried to trace cut the record of the suit but it was not available. The entire proceedings for the compromise was forged and when they came to know of it they filed application and the delay in filing the application, if any, be condoned. The petitioners took various objections. It was stated by them that the compromise was valid one, and after the said compromise the consolidation proceedings intervened and as no objection was filed by the applicants, their names continued in revenue records and they have raised construction on the land in question. The compromise was duly verified and it was valid and in accordance with the law. The Respondents (who were the applicants) also filed an application that report of the handwriting expert may be obtained. They had not put their signatures on the compromise application nor they had signed vakalatnama. The sub-Divisional Officer obtained a report of the hand writing expert who submitted report stating that the admitted signatures of the respondents do not tally with those which were existing on the application and the vakalatnama alleged to have been executed by the respondents. The sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 2 after taking into consideration the entire facts, allowed the application and set aside the said compromise decree by order dated 20-6-1986.
(3.) THE petitioner filed revision against the said order before the Commissioner. THE Additional Commissioner II Varanasi Division Varanasi recommended to the Board of Revenue that the case may be remanded for reconsideration of the application. THE Board of Revenue did not accept the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and found that a fraud was practiced upon the Court and it was as fit case in which the compromise decree should be set aside. It dismissed the revision by order dated 24-12-1991. THE petitioners have challenged these orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and the learned counsel for the State.;