B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 30th July 1976 passed by Board of Revenue (Annexure '4'). The case has got a chequered history. A suit under Section 176 of the UP ZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) was filed by Sri Bhrigunath Singh and Pbuleshar Singh, the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. The Petitioner, however, was not a party to that suit. The suit was decided by a compromise dated 20th August 1963, these 6 plots in dispute (plots No. 20, 38, 13, 20, 14, 15 etc) were given in the share of Ramakant Singh and Shivkant Singh, Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
(2.) THE Petitioner who was not a party to this suit, filed another suit in respect of these plots under Section 229 -B of the Act for declaration of Bhumidhari and Sirdari rights and Respondent Nos. 7 to 12 were also made parties along with State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha concerned. The contesting parties of the suit, however, entered into a compromise, and in consequence a compromise decree was passed on 25th April 1964 and the Petitioner was declared sirdar and bhumidhar of these 6 plots. The other Respondents who were parties to the suit, were however given other land (other than these six plots) and they felt satisfied. It is worth mention that no appeal or revision was filed against the compromise decree dated 25 -4 -64 in favour of the Petitioner and the said decree became final between the parties in all respects. By an order dated 28 -7 -66 the name of the Petitioner was entered in revenue papers in pursuance of aforesaid compromise decree. Rama Kant Singh and Shivkant Singh, Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, executed a sale -deed on 11th July, 1966 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in respect of 6 plots in dispute, even though the aforesaid compromise decree in favour of the Petitioner became final.
(3.) IT is further noticeable that after the compromise decree dated 25th April 1964 in which the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were parties and they accepted the claim of the Petitioner in respect of these 6 plots in dispute, they had no right left to execute a sale -deed in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. It was, however, open to them to challenge the compromise decree dated 25th April 1964 if so advised before the appellate or revisional court or it was open to them to have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the said compromise decree within a period of three years from the date of decree as provided under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. But nothing was done by them. They executed the aforesaid sale deed, hence such sale deed cannot ensure for the benefit of transferees.;