Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri C.S. Agnihotri and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for respondent -3 and Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, for respondent -4. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation 29.5.2014, allowing appeal of respondent -4 and setting aside order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 20.4.1981 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.12.014, dismissing revision of the petitioners, in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to plot 4924 (area 256 links) of village Dubari, pargana Natthupur, district Mau which was recorded in the names of Rama Shankar, Gauri Shankar and Kripa Shankar sons of Akshaiber, in basic consolidation year, along with other plots in khata 1787. It is alleged by the petitioners that Ram Badan, Jagdish, Ram Kawal, Triloki Nath and Rajendra Prasad (now represented by the petitioners) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 5657), under section 9 -A of the Act, for recording their names, over the aforesaid plot, claiming their adverse possession over it. The dispute was compromised between the parties, before Assistant Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 20.4.1981 directed for recording the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Fateh Bahadur (respondent -4) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1460/1559/2013 -14), on 21.12.2010 from the order dated 20.4.1981, along with delay condonation application. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 18.7.2011 held that as the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.2.1981 has already been set aside in appeal filed by State of U.P. on 18.7.2011 and recall application dated 26.10.2012, filed for recalling order dated 18.7.2011 has also been rejected by order dated 5.8.2013, as such delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was allowed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 487/2014 -15) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 18.12.2014 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute and perfected their title. The petitioners filed an objection, claiming their right over the land in dispute, which was registered as Case No. 5657, under section 9 -A of the Act, as is proved from misilband register. Although right of the petitioners, on the basis of their possession had been perfected, even then recorded tenure holders took Rs. 2,500/ - from the petitioners and entered into compromise, which was duly recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and order on its basis was passed on 20.4.1981. In pursuance of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, valuation of the land in dispute was included in the chak of the petitioners. Gauri Shankar and Kripa Shankar did not challenge the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, during their life time. Respondent -4 is not related to Gauri Shankar. After death of Gauri Shankar, name of one Santosh Kumar was mutated over his remaining property, by order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.9.1996. Santosh Kumar also did not challenge the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Appeal was barred by limitation of about 30 years. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the appeal filed by State of U.P. has been allowed. No reason has been assigned for condoning inordinate delay. Revision filed by the petitioners has been illegally dismissed. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Vishwanath v. D.D.C. and others, 2009 (108) RD 721, in which it has been held that only parties to the proceeding can file appeal under section 11 of the Act and Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (103) RD 312, in which it has been held that compromise in the Court cannot be set aside on the ground that it amounts to transfer of the property. He submitted that orders of respondents -1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside.;