S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appears for the contesting respondents.
(2.) Challenge in this petition are the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17th March, 1997 and 29.11.1995 respectively. Although in certain cases mentioning of fact in detail may not be required and brief narration may suffice but here in this petition mentioning of fact in detail in chronical order will itself speak about merits in the petitioner's submission and therefore, facts in detail are being summarised.
(3.) The village was notified under section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 28th October, 1973. It is stated that as all the three parities i.e. petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 happens to be real brother, by compromise order, Consolidation Officer disposed of their claim on 27.8.74. Petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 claims to have been allotted joint Chak. On 20.1.78 C.H. 23 is said to have been distributed which bears name of all the three brothers. It is stated that petitioner is in service in West Bengal and respondent No. 5 had been working as Peon in the office of Consolidation Officer Sikanderpur, district Ballia. It is stated that some appeal was filed by the respondent No. 4 and petitioner in respect to some Khata which was involved in the compromise order dated 27.8.74, upon which on 16.5.80, Settlement Officer Consolidation decided appeal in terms of the compromise against which other co-tenure holders filed revision which has also been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 1.7.80 in terms of the compromise. It is said that again respondents 4 and 5 filed appeal No. 1426 against the petitioner and other co-tenure holders against the order dated 27.8.74 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 3.11.81. It is said that another appeal was also field i.e. Appal No. 1427 against the petitioner and other co-tenure holders. Which was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order of the same date i.e. 3.11.81. Petitioner claims that he came to know about the incorrect Amal Daramad in the Khatauni extract in the year 1995 which was made pursuant to the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.2.1992 as referred in the Khatauni. On coming to know about the aforesaid Amal Daramad which was adverse to the petitioner's interest, he filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation upon which record was summoned. It is claimed that at this stage respondents 4 and 5 filed time barred objection before the Consolidation Officer on 12.11.92 upon which report was called in which it was been distributed which bears name of all the three brothers. It is stated that petitioner is in service in West Bengal and respondents No. 5 had been working as Peon in the office of Consolidation Officer Sikanderpur, district Ballia. It is stated that some appeal was filed by the respondent No. 4 and petitioner in respect to some Khata which was involved in the compromise order dated 27.8.74, upon which on 16.5.80, Settlement Officer Consolidation decided appeal in terms of the compromise against which other co-tenure holders filed revision which has also been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 1.7.80 in terms of the compromise. It is said that again respondents 4 and 5 filed appeal No. 1426 against the petitioner and other co-tenure holders against the order dated 27.8.74 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 3.11.81. It is said that another appeal was also filed i.e. Appeal No. 1427 against the petitioner and other co-tenure holders. Which was also dismissed by the Settlement .Officer Consolidation by the order of the same date i.e. 3.11.81. Petitioner claims that he came to know about the incorrect Amal Daramad in the Khatauni extract in the year 1995 which was made pursuant to the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.2.92, as referred in the Khatauni. On coming to know about the aforesaid Amal Daramad which was adverse to the petitioner's interest, he filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation upon which record was summoned. It is claimed that at this stage respondents 4 and 5 filed time barred objection before the Consolidation Officer on 12.11.92 upon which report was called in which it was clearly stated that the objections are highly belated. It is claimed that a transfer application was filed by the opposite party before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 3.12.93 upon which on the same date matter was ordered to be transferred from the Court of Consolidation Officer Ballia to the Court of Consolidation Officer Sikanderpur where respondent No. 5 is said to be working as Peon. Be as it may, order of the Consolidation Officer of which Amal Daramad was there, which offends petitioner is dated 5.2.93. It is in the-aforesaid backdrop petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation against the order of the Consolidation Officer, referred above, of which Amal Daramad was there. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment dated 29.11.95 against which revision also failed on 17.3.97 and thus these two orders are under challenge before this Court.;