S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of Consolidation proceedings.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as under ; THE dispute is in relation to Khata no. 57, situate in village Belgari, pargana Bansi East, Tahsil Bansi, district Basti. In the basic year, the names of the petitioners Mohid and Indrish and respondent nos. 4 to 17 were recorded as sirdars. On 21st March, 1970, the Assistant Consolidation Officer decided the dispute in relation to the said Khata in terms of the compromise. Against the order dated 21st March, 1970, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). THE appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 29th March, 1971. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31st March, 1971, dismissed the revision. THE petitioners, aggrieved by the said decision, have filed the present petition in this court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners did not sign the compromise, the compromise was wholly invalid, in law, and the entire proceedings were contrary to Rule 25-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and as such, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and - the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in not setting aside the said compromise.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, however, in reply has urged that though it is a fact that the petitioners had not signed the compromise by inadvertance, but, they were in fact, present at the time of the compromise and that further in pursuance of the compromise, the petitioners had also moved an application for expunging the names of the respondents from the records of village Belgari to complete effectuate the terms of the compromise and, consequently, it was urged that the compromise did take place and there was no violation of Rule 25-A as urged by the petitioners. The facts, which emerge from the petition, are that it is, no doubt, true that the petitioners Mohid and Indrish did not sign the alleged compromise. It is, however, clear that on 18th October, 1970, an application was moved before the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been filed as Annexure 'A-3' to the counter affidavit. From this application, it is clear that the application was also moved by both the petitioners along with the two other brothers of theirs. In this application, it has been categorically stated that a compromise had taken place in respect of the plots in dispute and that the application was made in pursuance of the said compromise so that the names of the applicants may be solely recorded in respect of 1 Bigha of land in village Belgari, which was in terms of the compromise.;