Khem Karan, J. - (1.) The petitioners are challenging the correctness and legality of order dated 2.1.1975 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Koyeripur, order dated 9.1.1978, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal under section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation in revision under section 48 of the said Act.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under:- One Gajadhar, grand-father of the petitioners contracted another marriage with one Smt. Hubraji, real mother of Opp. party No. 4 Sita Ram. According to the petitioners, Sita Ram was born to Smt. Hubraji from her former husband Narain Koyri. It is said that the union of Smt. Hubraji and Gajadhar gave birth to Shri Chand, father of the petitioners. It so happened that Gajadhar executed a gift-deed dated 23.5.1941 in favour of Sita Ram in respect of one half share in the property mentioned therein and later on entered into compromise on 15.7.1949 and 26.10.1951 in two suits, giving one third share in other plots to Sita Ram. At that time Shri Chand was minor. There is no dispute that Shri Chand filed a civil suit No. 231 of 1953 against Sita Ram and others for cancellation of gift-deed dated 23.5.1941 and compromise deed dated 15.7.1949 and 26.10.1951 on the grounds inter alia that his father Gajadhar had no right to transfer the ancestral property to a stranger. Anneuxre-1, copy of judgment and order dated 26.5.1954 delivered by Additional Munsif Jaunpur, reveals that the said suit was decreed. In appeal No. 282/54, there was a compromise between the parties, in terms of which Sita Ram was given one third share in the property so involved and remaining two third share remained with the father of the petitioners. Compromise decree was passed on 2.5.1955 by the Appel- late Court. The area went in consolidation operation, during the course of which there came into being a compromise or settlement before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 2.1.1975, by virtue of which Opp. party No. 4 Sita Ram was to get 2/5 share in Khata No. 250 and half share in Khata No. 626.
(3.) Shri Chand, a party to the said compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer died in 1992. It was after about 19 years, 7 months and 20 days, these petitioners filed one appeal under section 11 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur against compromise order dated 2.1.1975 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, alongwith an application for Condonation of delay. Annexure-5 copy of the grounds of said appeal reveals that the plea of the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer was that Sitaram won over the Assistant Consolidation Officer, so as to get a compromise order, contrary to the decree of the Civil Court. It was said that the Assistant Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to vary the decree of the Civil Court. It was also alleged in para-8 that the Assistant Consolidation Officer committed fraud on Shri Chand in collusion with Sitaram. They said that singe the entire property was being managed by Sitaram and since they were either out of the village in connection with employment or were minor and since they reposed full confidence in Opp. party No. 4, who was head of the family, so had no opportunity or occasion to discover this fraud earlier to 1994. The Settlement Officer Consolidation was not convinced with the petitioners' pleas, so as to condone the delay. He rejected the application for Condonation of delay by passing a detailed order dated 9.1.1998. According to him, there was no plausible explanation as to wiry the petitioners kept mum for 19 years 7 months and 20 days and why their father Shri Chand did not allege any such fraud in his life time.;