- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against order dated 30.10.2001, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Sadar, Varanasi, allowing the restoration application and thereby recalling compromise decree dated 9.8.1982 and restoring proceedings to its original number, as well as revisional order dated 15.12.2001, whereby the proceedings of revision pending before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, has been held to have abated by virtue of section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the controversy involved are that a declaratory suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was instituted on 28.9.1976 by Rupayan, Basantu, Somaru, Raja sons of Pargas and Babu Nandan son of Jhular, claiming co-tenancy right with the defendants Kantu son of Dingari, Sitaram, Mita Ram, Radhey Shyam sons of Laltoo, Vishwanath son of Dubari, Mewa son of Bhagelu. In the said suit, notices were issued and defendant nos.1 to 4 & 6 filed written statement on 28.12.1978 and defendant no.5 filed his written statement on 7.2.1979. After the issues were framed on 27.3.1979, an amendment was moved by the defendants, which was also allowed and additional issues were also framed. Oral and documentary evidence, in respect of the claim, was adduced by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that with the intervention of some respectable members of the village a compromise was entered into between the parties on 29.7.1982, which was attested by their counsels and was also verified by the court concerned. Acting on the basis of said compromise, the suit was decreed on 9.8.1982. An application, thereafter, was moved by Kantu son of Dingari, one of the defendants, for correction of Parwana Amaldaramad, which was rejected for want of prosecution on 20.1.1987. It is alleged that pursuant to the compromise decree passed, revenue records were corrected and the decree was given effect to. A notification thereafter was issued on 16.9.1991 under section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and C.H. Form 5 was issued on 22.9.1993, whereafter village was notified under section 20 of the C.H. Act on 1.8.1995. A restoration application was moved by defendants Mita Ram and Sitaram against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.1982 on 19.8.1995.
(3.) The defendants had sought restoration with the allegation that thumb impression of defendant Sitaram on compromise date 9.8.1982 was forged and signatures of some impostor was affixed and that the parties had no knowledge of the compromise decree. It was also stated that the defendants had no right to enter into compromise, as the land in dispute had already been declared surplus in ceiling proceedings. The court concerned proceeded to allow the restoration application vide its order dated 30.10.2001.;