- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a Ashok Kumar and thus they have no more interest in the disputed property. Their objection could stand dismissed. Ram Ugrah Singh would have one half share in the disputed property and remaining half would belong to Smt. Sohra Devi. The compromise was verified before the Consolidation Officer and an order writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari commanding opposite party No. 1 to produce the record of the case for perusal of the Court and quash the judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S. O. C.) dated 5. 9. 73 (Annexure 3) and also the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18. 12. 73 (Annexure 5 ).
(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. In the basic year, the name of Smt. Sohra Devi, wife of Hanumant was recorded. Smt. Ganga Devi, respondent No. 5 filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming herself to be a co-sharer with Smt. Sohra Devi, respondent No. 4 (now deceased) and Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 6. She also set up a pedigree. Ram Ugrah Singh, the petitioner (now deceased) initially did not file any objection. But Smt. Sohra Devi through him, filed an objection denying the interest of Smt. Ganga Devi and Ashok Kumar on 12. 5. 72. On 21. 9. 72 Ram Ugrah Singh filed a time-barred objection claiming himself to be a co-sharer to the extent of one half. He did not set up any pedigree nor he alleged as to how he got one half share in the disputed property or as to how he claimed himself to be a member of this family. Admittedly, the disputed property was sirdari, recorded in the name of Smt. Sohra Devi. On 24. 9. 72 before the Consolidation Officer, a compromise was filed which had been entered into by Smt. Ganga Devi, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Ugrah Singh and Smt. Sohra Devi. It has been mentioned in the compromise that Ram Ugrah Singh has paid Rs. 8,000/- to Smt. Ganga Devi and Ashok Kumar and thus they have no more interest in the disputed property. Their objection could stand dismissed. Ram Ugrah Singh would have one half share in the disputed property and remaining half would belong to Smt. Sohra Devi. The compromise was verified before the Consolidation Officer and an order dated 24. 9. 72 was passed by the Consolidation Officer in terms of the compromise.
(3.) ON 5. 9. 73, Smt. Ganga Devi filed an application before the Consolidation Officer that, in fact, she had not entered into any compromise on 24. 9. 72 at all. The contents of the same were not read over and explained to her. A fraud had been played upon her. She had not received any money whatsoever from Ram Ugrah Singh. Ram Ugrah Singh does not belong to this family. He alleged to have become sirdar by virtue of an illegal transfer in the shape of a compromise. Then the matter came up before the S. O. C. After hearing, the parties, the S. O. C. vide his judgment dated 5. 9. 83 (Annexure 3) firstly condoned the delay in filing this application by Smt. Ganga Devi under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He found on merits that in the shape of this camouflaged com promise so-called, virtually a transfer of sirdari interest was effected. It had not been established that Ram Ugrah belonged to this family. Therefore, this document could not be termed as a family settlement. He accordingly found that it was an illegal transfer and the compromise should not be accepted as a valid act of the parties He accordingly ordered the matter to be sent back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the interest of the parties according to law on merits.;