S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Appeal No. 1712 of 1989 (which appears to have been renumbered afterwards as 224/291) is pending before S.O.C Azamgarh for 17 years still it has not been decided. The said appeal is directed against order of Consolidation Officer (C.O) dated 13.12.1989. Through the said order, C.O. decided the matter in favour of Tilku and against Shiv Shanker. According to the petitioners Mithai Lal son of Shiv Shanker filed the aforesaid appeal, however, thereafter manipulation was made in the records of Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C) and the words Satish Chandra alias were added before Mithai Lal. Petitioners are not clear that when this alleged interpolation took place. In the appeal Tilku died and was survived by his grandsons who were substituted at his place as respondents in the appeal. Petitioners claimed that in the year 2001, they purchased the property in dispute from those grandsons of Tilku and petitioners have also been substituted as opposite parties/ respondents in the appeal. Thereafter some objections were filed by the petitioners that Mithai Lal was no more interested in contesting the appeal and he had shifted to Rajasthan and one Satish Chandra after making the above mentioned interpolation was contesting the proceeding of appeal. It is interesting to note that in the writ petition Mithai Lal has not been impleaded and Satish Chandra son of late Shiv Shanker Misra has been impleaded as respondent No.3 (the only contesting respondent).
(2.) The case of Tilku before Consolidation officer was that recorded tenure holder Shiv Shanker had compromised with him in a suit in 1956 and by virtue of the said compromise decree land in dispute belonged to him even though the said compromise was not given effect to by correction of entries in the revenue records.
(3.) In para 6 of the writ petition, it has been stated that Mithai Lal son of Shiv Shanker filed appeal before S.O.C. It is not clear as to whether according to the petitioner Shiv Shanker was survived by only one son or two sons.;