Ram Surat Ram, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Govind Saran Nigam for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Verma for the contesting respondent. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of SOC dated 2.11.2013 and DDC dated 13.5.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) It is alleged that there was compromise between the co -sharers of the petitioner before the ACO in respect of land of various khatas and on the basis of the compromise, the ACO by order dated 20.1.1990 decided the dispute between the parties. Thereafter, the order was challenged in appeal by Jalaluddin and others on 15.4.1993, along with delay condonation application. It has been stated in the memorandum of appeal that khata No. 273 was exclusive property of Jalaluddin and others (appellants) and Mohd. Yunus and other respondents have no share in it. ACO without issuing any notice to the appellants, on the basis of a fabricated compromise, passed the impugned order dated 20.1.1990. On coming to know about the order, the appeal was filed. Since the order was passed without any notice to the parties, as such, delay was liable to be condoned. The appeal was heard by SOC, who by order dated 2.11.2013, found that the compromise dated 20.1.1990 appears to be doubtful. As the right of the parties are decided finally forever during consolidation, as such, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the parties be allowed to contest the matter on merit. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 20.1.1990 and remanded the matter to CO for trial of dispute between the parties on merit. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which was heard by DDC, who by order dated 13.2.2015 found that some of the lines of the conciliation recorded by ACO are written in the margin, as such, the entire proceeding appears to be doubtful and it appears that the signatures were obtained prior to recording the conciliation. Jalaluddin used to make his signature in Hindi, while his signature on the conciliation is in Urdu. In these circumstances, the SOC has not committed any illegality in setting aside the order of ACO and remanding the matter for trial of dispute on merit. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the genuineness of the compromise has been challenged by Jalaluddin and others. This Court in Ramraj v/s. D.D.C., : 2011 (2013) RD 571, held that genuineness is required to be challenged before the same authority. In this case, the genuineness has been challenged before the Appellate Court, without challenging it before the ACO, as such, the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in this respect. He submits that Jalaluddin used to make signatures in Urdu as well as in Hindi. There must be evidence in this respect that the signature of Jalaluddin on the compromise was not made by him and a finding ought to have been recorded in this respect, but neither there is any evidence, nor any finding and the order passed by ACO has been illegally set aside. There were other co -sharers also who have not challenged the compromise. On the basis of the order of ACO, some of the co -sharers have also executed the conciliation, therefore, without considering all these facts, the SOC has illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the order of ACO, after about 20 years, although the compromise between the parties have been acted upon and there was no reason to condone the inordinate delay.;