B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities.
(2.) THE plots in dispute are Kati Nos. 5, 62 and 202 of village Baniapur and Khata Nos. 31, 41 and 42 of village Jam in Baniapur. In proceedings Under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), an objection was filed by the Petitioners claiming 11/12 share on the basis of a compromise dated 27.05.1944 entered in to in a mutation case and it was alleged that that order became final and they were entitled to that share. The case of the Petitioner was contested by the contesting Respondents 4 to 11, who alleged that the Petitioners were not entitled to 11/12 share rather they were entitled to a share according to the pedigree. The consolidation authorities rejected the claim of the Petitioners in respect of these Kats mainly on the ground that the compromise dated 27.4.1944 in a mud anion proceeding was not admissible as it was not in respect of a title suit but only in respect of correction of papers or mutation proceedings.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the compromise dated 27.05.1944 in the mutation proceeding was admissible in evidence but the consolidation authorities erred in rejecting it. Reliance was placed on Algoo v. Dr. Director of Consolidation : 1979 AWC 299 (OB), Raipati v. Dr. Director of Consolidation : 1979 AWC 302 (DB) and Kale v. Dr. Director to consolidation : AIR 1976 SC 807. It was further urged that even though in place of Hard, his wife has placed her thumb impression but as the compromise was in the nature of family settlement, it was sufficient Compliance and there was no illegality. Even family settlement need not be registered.;