Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sriprakash Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Malaviya, learned Counsel for contesting respondent.
(2.) Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under: On death of recorded tenure-holder Ram Asrey, an application was filed by his widow Gulab Kali respondent No. 5 for mutation of her name in place of the deceased. On the basis of compromise between respondent No. 5 on one hand and two members of the consolidation committee on the other hand, her name was directed to be recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.1.1998. The petitioners who are claiming rights over the land in dispute on the basis of a Will executed by deceased tenure-holder Ram Asrey were not either party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer or to tire compromise on the basis of which order dated 19.1.1998 was passed by him. Having acquired knowledge of the order dated 19.1.1998 petitioners moved an application to recall the same. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer the parties entered into a compromise on the basis of which Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 30.1.2000 directing mutation of the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 moved an application to recall the order dated 30.1.2000 mainly on the ground that he did not enter into any compromise and Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass any fresh orders without setting aside the order dated 19.1.1998 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer. During the pendency of the restoration application before the Consolidation officer the petitioners went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer consolidation challenging the order dated 19.1.1998 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer. Respondent No. 5 also went up in appeal against the order dated 30.1.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer. The appeals were consolidated and vide order dated 20.8.2003 Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner whereas the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed. Petitioners went up in revision. Deputy Director of 'Consolidation vide order dated 10.11.2004 has dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that without recording any finding regarding validity of compromise between the parties before Consolidation Officer, appeal filed by respondent No. 5 has wrongly been allowed. It has further been urged that Will set up by the petitioners has been discarded on extraneous grounds without adjudicating upon its validity.;