Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to allotment of chaks. It appears that objections under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner Harku deceased, since substituted by his heirs claiming a larger area in his chak plot No. 77. The objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In that appeal photostat of the compromise deed was filed by respondent No. 2 Jagat Bahadur. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation did not decide the case on the basis of the compromise on the ground that the compromise did not relate to all the plots and allowed the appeal of Harkhu and allotted to Flarkhu a chak on his original plot No. 77 and gave plot Nos. 155 etc. to Jagat Bahadur. The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was challenged by Jagat Bahadur in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the impugned order dated 31.10.1992 and allowed the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon the photostat copy of the compromise and observed that by virtue of the said compromise plot No. 155 was agreed to be given to Harkhu.
(2.) I have heard Sri D.S.P. Singh Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Prasad Counsel for respondent No. 2.
(3.) It was submitted by Sri D.S.P. Singh Counsel for the petitioner that the compromise is a forged one and only a photostat copy of the compromise which did not bear the signatures of the petitioner was filed and that in any case there was a misreading of the compromise by the Deputy Director of Consolidation inasmuch as plot No. 155 was not the subject matter of the compromise and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly observed that by virtue of the compromise plot No. 155 was to be given to the petitioner. The copy of the compromise application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition and also by the respondent No. 2 alongwith his counter-affidavit. A perusal of the said compromise indicates that it does not refer to plot No. 155 and the observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this regard is erroneous. For this reason, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.1992 is set aside and the case is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision on merits. It will be open to both the parties to raise whatever contentions that are available to them under the law, including the point whether the compromise was a forged one or not and the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall consider the same and decide the case afresh. Counsel for the parties agree that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may decide the revision expeditiously. In the circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall try to decide the revision if possible within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Petition Allowed.;