- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri R. C. Singh appearing for the petitioner.
(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in revised list, no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent No. 2 nor there is any counter-affidavit on this behalf on record. The dispute relates to the plot No. 67/13. 19 situate in village Bhairopur, Tappa Khuriya, Tehsil Haraiya District Basti which was sirdari of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and was transferred by them in favour of petitioner after obtaining Bhumidari Sanad. Though the Sub-Divisional Officer in Case No. 569/698 passed an order for mutation of the name of the petitioner on the basis of sale-deed but somehow the revenue records were not corrected and the plot in dispute continued to be recorded in the name of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. During consolidation proceedings the petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming rights on the basis of the sale-deed. The respondent No. 2 also filed objection claiming rights over the plot in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26- 3-1973 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner whereas the objection filed by the respondent No. 2 was dismissed. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 20-6-1974. Feeling aggrieved the respondent No. 2 filed revision. During pendency of the revision an alleged compromise was filed on the basis of which the claim of respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 3-1- 1975. The petitioner having come to know about the said order moved an application dated 10-9-1975 to recall the same on the ground that he never entered into any compromise and his alleged signature on the said compromise is forged. It has been stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid application was moved before District Deputy Director of Consolidation who passed the order on 1-4-1976 that the application be sent to the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation (II) Basti for necessary action. However, when nothing was done petitioner moved another application before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who passed an order on 22-5-1976 directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to take appropriate action.
(3.) THE proceedings started before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE petitioner moved an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act duly supported by an affidavit explaining the delay. He also moved an application for comparison of his admitted signatures with alleged signatures on compromise and vakalatnama said to have been executed in favour of one Sri Someshwar Yadav, Advocate to appear on his behalf. Sri T. H. Siddiqui, handwriting expert submitted a report on 31-10-1981 that specimen signature did not tally with the signature made on the alleged compromise and vakalatnama. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 25-6- 1982 on two grounds, firstly, the petitioner failed to give any reasonable explanation for delay and secondly, he disbelieved the report of handwriting expert. I have perused the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;