S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) In this case arguments of learned counsel for both the parties were heard on 24.5.2006 and judgment was reserved after recording the following order in the order sheet:- "In this case during pendency of writ petition it was alleged by one party that some compromise had taken place. One side has alleged that in O.S No. 1659 of 1986 some compromise was entered into. Other side has alleged that a suit being O.S. No. 2219 of 2003 has been filed for cancellation of the said compromise decree. On 16.12.2003 this court directed that the parties must put forward their claims in respect of compromise before D.D.C however it appears that no one had approached the D.D.C. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the writ petition be decided ignoring all the allegations regarding compromise alleged to have been entered into during pendency of the writ petition. Arguments of learned counsel for both the parties have been heard on merit today. Judgment reserved."
(2.) Original petitioner Lalji Prasad Yati (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) and original respondent No.4 Sajwal Yati were real brothers. Originally Balesar and Ramesar were co-bhumidhar of the agricultural land in dispute (plot Nos. 55/1, 55/3, 56 and 135/1). Petitioner purchased share of Ramesar in execution of a decree on 23.5.1962. The other co sharer Balesar also transfered his share to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1962 and in this manner petitioner became sole bhumidhar of the entire land in dispute and was recorded as such in the revenue records. After start of consolidation Jamuna and four others filed objections under section 9(2) of U.P C.H. Act claiming to be the co-bhumidhar of the land in dispute.
(3.) The case was registered as case No. 931 on the file of Consolidation Officer (C.O), Deoria. According to the allegations of the petitioner, he was mostly living in West Bengal hence he gave power of attorney to his brother respondent No.4 to contest the said case. The said power of attorney was executed on 17.4.1971. Respondent No.4 admitted execution and acceptance of the same. Thereafter respondent No.4 also filed objections before C.O on 21.4.1971 claiming therein that auction sale and sale deed in favour of the petitioner were in the representative capacity and respondent No.4 was also co-sharer along with him. It was further alleged by the petitioner that his brother respondent No.4 forged his signatures on Vakalatnama and filed the same in case No. 931 engaging Sri T.P.Kushwaha, advocate. Before C.O. Sri Kushwaha, advocate entered into compromise on 31.5.1971 admitting half share of respondent No.4. Copy of the compromise filed before C.O is annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is shown to have been signed by Lalji as well as his counsel. However the copy does not appear to be correct as according to the judgment of the courts below and counter affidavit filed in this writ petition by respondent No.4, the compromise was signed only by Sri Kushwaha advocate. Even during arguments in this writ petition, it was not stated that compromise was signed by petitioner. The case (case No. 931) was decided by C.O Orena Salempur district Deoria on 10.12.1971. In the judgment, the entire discussion is regarding the case of Jamuna and others and their case has been disbelieved. The C.O directed recording of name of respondent No.4 also along with the name of petitioner in the revenue records only on the basis of compromise. Against the judgment of C.O petitioner as well as Jamuna and others filed appeals being appeal No. 956 and 2876. Appeals were dismissed by ASOC, Deoria on 29.8.1972. In respect of compromise it was stated that compromise was the admission of petitioner and binding upon him. Thereafter it was observed that " the compromise was signed by the counsel for Lalji and hence no reason to disbelieve it." Against order dated 29.8.1972 revision Nos. 316 and 317 were filed. First revision was filed by Jamuna and others and second one by petitioners.;