SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Girish Kumar, learned brief holder of Sri Ajai Pal Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties No.4 to 6.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings, which were initially pending in between Jai Ram and opposite party No.4, Rajendra Prasad. Rajendra Prasad asserted that in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, a compromise was entered into between him and Jai Ram on 21.06.1984, which was verified by the C.O. on 07.02.1985. Thereafter, on 5th (or 7th) August, 1985, an application was filed purporting to be on behalf of Jai Ram for cancellation of compromise. However before the case could be decided in terms of compromise or the recall application dated 5th (or 7th) August 1985 could be decided, Jai Ram died on 10.08.1985. Thereafter, matter was decided by the Additional C.O. Baharaich on merit on 03.11.1987. Tthe said order was passed in Case No.21 to 40 under Section 9A of U.P.C.H. Act, Jai Ram and others Vs. Smt. Bhagwan Kunwar. The dispute was regarding title to the agricultural land left behind by Smt. Bhagwan Kunwar. Jai Ram claimed that he inherited the property being husband of Bhagwan Kunwar, however opposite party No.4, Rajendra Prasad asserted that Bhagwan Kunwar was not married to Jai Ram and he being real brother of Bhagwan Kunawar inherited the property in dispute. Petitioner claimed that Jai Ram had executed a Will in his favour on 22.07.1985 and he contested the proceedings after the death of Jai Ram. Before the C.O. petitioner asserted that Jai Ram did not enter into any compromise. The contesting opposite parties disputed the said contention.
(3.) THE C.O. through its order dated 03.11.1987 held that if the allegation of petitioner that Jai Ram was forced to sign the compromise was correct, then compromise was voidable, hence consolidation courts had no authority to judge the said plea and petitioner could approach the Civil Court. Even though I do not agree with this reasoning but nothing will turn upon reversal of the said point. Whether compromise was or was not entered into need not be decided after the death of Jai Ram. I propose to decide the writ petition without taking into consideration the compromise. The C.O. had also decided the matter on merit and held that Jai Ram was not husband of Bhagwan Kunwar. Against the order of the C.O., petitioner filed Appeal No.1855, Lakshman Prasad Vs. Rajendra Prasad. S.O.C., Bharaich dismissed the appeal on 07.06.1989. Against the said order, revision being Case No.2879 -T416, Lakshman Prasad Vs. Rajendra was filed. Additional Collector/ Chief Revenue Officer, Baharaich exercising power of D.D.C. dismissed the revision on 01.10.1994, hence this writ petition.;