DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The controversy relates to certain plots of khata No. 4 situated in village Sakhera, Pargana Sandee, Tahsil Bilgram, district Hardoi. In the court of Consolidation Officer on 13.10.1980 a compromise was alleged to be filed by the parties for the plots in question. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer by impugned order dated 14.10.1980 had decided the controversy in terms of compromise. Petitioner had filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 14.10.1980 in the month of June 1987 on the ground that neither he has signed any compromise nor he has engaged Sri R.P. Bajpai as counsel. Petitioner had also submitted that he has not signed any Vakalatnama to engage Sri R.P. Bajpai as counsel. He retired from army on 1.10.1986 and when he came back then he has come to know regarding the devolution of land in terms of compromise between the parties. Copy of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act while preferring the appeal, has been filed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED appellate court had dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated 11.2.1988 on the ground that signature and thumb impression has been verified by the respective counsel and thereafter compromise has been confirmed by Consolidation Officer. The delay explained by the petitioner was not sufficient hence the appeal was dismissed by impugned order dated 11.2.1988. While dismissing the appeal the learned appellate court was impressed by the fact that the appeal was filed after almost lapse of seven years. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a revision. The revisional court retreated the order of appellate court and dismissed the revision by impugned order dated 6.2.1989, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition. While assailing the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that entire proceeding relating to alleged compromise was sham transaction and was an outcome of fraud committed by the respondents. According to the petitioner's counsel the compromise was not recorded and finalized in terms of Rule 25A of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short hereinafter referred as the Rules). The further submission of the petitioner's counsel is that in case there was any agreement between the parties for amicable settlement then the controversy should have been decided in terms of compromise by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in pursuance to provisions contained in Section 9A of U.P.C.H. Act, Only in the event of dispute between the parties and filing of objection the controversy should have been referred to Consolidation Officer for disposal in accordance to provisions contained in Section 9B of the U.P.C.H. Act. For convenience Section 9A of the U.P.C.H. Act is reproduced as under: 9A. Disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings. - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall: (i) where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of Joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned; and (ii) where no objections are filed, making such enquiry as he may deem necessary; settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by consolidation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of conciliation: Provided that where the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, is satisfied that a case of succession is undisputed, he shall dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry. (2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sub -section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvement, for calculating compensation therefore, and its appointment amongst co -owner, if there be more owners that one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under Sub -section (1) and the Consolidation officer, while acting under Sub -section (2), shall be deemed to be a court of competent Jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents admits that no objection was filed in pursuance to provisions contained in Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act then how the controversy was settled in terms of compromise by the Consolidation Officer, seems to be relevant question and requires for consideration apart from applicability of Rule 25A of the Rules. It has been admitted that no objection was pending for disposal before the Consolidation Officer.;