B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by the consolidation authorities in the proceedings Under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). The plots in dispute were Nos. 2291, 2294/3 and 2294/4, etc. plot No. 2291 was recorded as bhumidhari of Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, and plot Nos. 2294/3 and 2294/4 were recorded as bhumidhari of the Petitioners in the basic year records. It appears from the pedigree that Respondents No. 4 to 7 were the sons of Bhagwandin, who was the son of Binda whereas Mahabir, Petitioner No. 1 is the great -grand son of Binda.
(2.) AN objection Under Section 9A(2) of the Act was filed by Respondent No. 4 claiming that he has obtained a lease dated 24th September, 1954 from Gaon Sabha, in respect of plots in dispute, hence his name may be entered as Sirdar and the entries in the name of the Petitioners may be expunged. The Petitioners contested the case alleging that earlier a suit Under Section 49/59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was filed in respect of the plots in dispute by Kedar and Jokhai, descendants of Bhagwan against Bhagwaadin father of Respondents 4 to 7, and others for declaration and partition. In that suit the then Zamindar was a party, the suit was partly decreed by the trial court in respect of only one plot, but the appeal was filed before the Commissioner and in the appeal a compromise dated 12th February, 1958 was arrived at between the parties including Bhagwandin, father of Respondents No. 4 to 7 and others including the present Petitioners (A copy of the compromise has been filed as Annexure '1' to this petition). On the basis of this compromise the appeal was decided by the Additional Commissioner and all the parties were given share and a final decree was directed to be prepared, which was opposed by Respondent No. 4 by filing an objection but that was dismissed hence compromise decree would operate as res -judicata or an estoppel against Respondents 4 to 7, and as lease was executed Firing pendency of earlier suit between parties hence doctrine of lis -pendens would apply and lease was illegal and void. The State was not a necessary party in a suit for partition.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer by the order dated 1st December, 1972 partly decided the case against the Petitioners and partly against Respondent No. 4. Both parties preferred appeals which were dismissed by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 22nd February, 1973. The Petitioners and Doodhnath preferred revisions which also met the same fate by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14th May, 1973. Against these orders the present petition has been filed.;