Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.M. Singh holding brief of Sri U.S.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under: Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and co-tenure-holders. During chak allotment proceedings, petitioner No. 1 was proposed one chak on plot Nos. 833, 835, 836, 866, 867 and 868 and another chak on plot Nos. 1976 and 1980. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was proposed one chak on plot Nos. 866, 867, 868, 869/1 and another chak on plot No. 1976 and 1980. Since the entire area of their original plot Nos. 1976 and 1980 were not allotted to them in the pro- posed chak as such they filed an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') which was registered as case No. 5666. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.5.1978 allowed the objection. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 filed a belated objection on 19.7.1979 claiming allotment of plot No. 1980 in his chak though the same originally belonged to the petitioners. The said objection came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of an alleged compromise between the parties. After acquiring knowledge of the said order, the petitioners filed a belated appeal along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Appeal was filed on the ground that the petitioners had no knowledge about the objection filed by respondent No. 3. Neither any notices were ever served upon them nor did they engage any Counsel nor signed the compromise. It was further urged that respondent No. 3, committed forgery in filing the compromise as the same was never signed by them, and obtained the order on the basis of the same. In the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, it was pleaded that the petitioners came to know about the ex-parte order of the Consolidation Officer on 24.11.1981 and after obtaining copy of the order on 25.11.1981 filed the appeal on 26.11.1981 Settlement Officer Consolidation though held that copy of the modified C.H. Form-23 was given to the petitioner No. 1 on 6.6.1981 and thus he would have obtained knowledge of the order of the Consolidation Officer on the said date but still he condoned the delay on payment of Rs. 15/-as cost. Aggrieved by the same, the contesting respondent filed a revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 16.10.1984 allowed the same on the ground that Settlement Officer Consolidation without analysing the validity of the alleged compromise wrongly condoned the delay. He further analysed the alleged compromise himself and recorded a finding that the same bears the signature and thumb impression of the parties which have been verified by their Counsel and as such there was a valid compromise between the parties. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed this petition.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the appeal filed by the petitioners was beyond time. Settlement Officer Consolidation could not have analysed the order of the Consolidation Officer without condoning the delay. It has further been contended that Deputy Director of Consolidation without analysing the evidence or the averments made by the petitioners and without recording any finding as to whether the notice of the objection was served upon the petitioners, in a very cursory manner upheld the compromise which is patently illegal.;