Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Tripathi for the petitioner and Dr. O.P. Yadav for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.8.2015 by which he has allowed the revision and condoned the delay and set aside the order dated 24.10.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the compromise and remanded the matter to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh on merit.
(2.) There is dispute between the parties in respect of Chak No. 157 area 992 kadi situated in village Miriya Redaha, pargana and tehsil Sagari, Distt. Azamgarh. On the basis of sale deed executed by Bideshi, father of the petitioner, the contesting respondents filed an application under Sec. 9 of U.P.C.H. Act for recording their names over 1/2 share of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 7.6.1988 directed for mutation of the names of contesting respondents over the land in dispute. Bideshi, father of the petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The appeal was initially, dismissed in default by order dated 17.4.1989. Thereafter Bideshi filed an application for recall of the order dated 17.4.1989 on 26.4.1989. It is alleged that in the restoration application the contesting respondents put appearance before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and filed vakalatnama of Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate on 7.10.1989 and thereafter a compromise was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 24.10.1989 which was allegedly executed by Bideshi whose thumb impression was verified by his Counsel Sri Shiv Sunder Upadhyay and also signed by Birbal whose signature was identified by Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey. At the time of verification of the compromise dated 24.10.1989 it has been stated that the compromise was filed on behalf of Birbal himself and on behalf of Rajendra and Ram Bhajan through their Counsel Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey. Thereafter appeal was decided in terms of compromise by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.10.1989. It may be mentioned that in this compromise half share in Chak No. 157 was given to Bideshi, father of the petitioner and half share in it was given to Birbal, Rajendra and Ram Bhajan. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed a civil suit i.e. O.S. No. 785 of 1987 before Munsif, Mohammadabad, Azamgarh impleading Bideshi and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over half share in Chak No. 157 as well as restraining Bideshi from executing any sale deed of the land in dispute and that suit was also decided in terms of compromise between the parties filed on 29.4.1988 in which half share of the petitioner has been admitted and on the basis of that compromise civil suit was decreed on 30.4.1988. On the basis of that decree of civil Court the petitioner also filed an application for mutation of his name before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 8.3.1991 directed for mutation of the name of the petitioner over half share of the land in dispute. The contesting respondents have challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 8.3.1991 in appeal, thus they came to know about the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.10.1989 at least on the date of filing of the appeal against the order dated 8.3.1991.
(3.) Thereafter the contesting respondents filed a highly time barred revision against the order dated 24.10.1989 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 15.12.2012 along with delay condonation application. In the memorandum of revision they have stated that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in default and he has filed an application for recall of the order. Before recall of the order the fabricated compromise has been filed and on the basis of that compromise order dated 24.10.1989 has been secured. The contesting respondents neither appeared before the Settlement Officer Consolidation nor filed any vakalatnama. Thus the compromise is totally fabricated document. In respect of the knowledge of the order dated 24.10.1989 it has been stated that they had filed an appeal against the order dated 8.3.1991 i.e. Appeal No. 358/378 and during preparation for argument in the appeal they came to know about the order dated 24.10.1989 only in the month of December 2012 and thereafter the inspection was made and the revision was filed. The petitioner filed an objection and counter affidavit in the delay condonation application as well as in the revision in which it has been stated that the contesting respondents had appeared before the Appellate Court and voluntarily filed vakalatnama as well as compromise on the basis of order dated 24.10.1989 was passed after due verification of the compromise. Therefore the revision was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.;