S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is concurrent judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This petition is delayed by one year and 190 days vide report of the Stamp Reporter.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at admission stage.
(3.) Submission is that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is illegal and fraudulent as opposite parties got petitioners share reduced and the compromise was got entered illegally and in fact petitioner was not party in the proceeding and thus the compromise order being illegal was liable to be set aside but the appellate authority and the revisional court has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and revision as barred by time. It is further submitted that in respect to various averments as made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner there is no specific denial by the opposite party in the affidavit and, therefore, that is to be treated as admission and thus petitioner was entitled for relief as prayed. In support of the submission that if the order is result of fraud and if it suffers inherent lack of jurisdiction the court has inherent jurisdiction to recall it, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of Budhia Swain and Ors. v. Gopinath Deb and Ors. reported in 1999 A.C.J. 1462. In support of the submission that if a plea or allegation has not been controverted it is to be treated as admission, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of P.N. Srivastava v. State of U. P. and Ors. reported in 1999 A.C.J. 255.;