RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the Consolidation authorities Under Section 9, 11-A and 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953) as regards the title of the petitioner viz-a-viz the private respondents which have obviously been passed in favour of the respondents. The facts of the case in brief are that prior to start of consolidation operation a suit for partition/division of shares in respect of agricultural land in dispute was filed by the petitioners herein before the competent Court under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950. It is alleged by the respondents and has been held by the courts below that a compromise was filed between the parties on 01.03.1986 and on that very day a preliminary decree, based on such compromise, was passed as the matter was already fixed before the court on the said date. Before further proceedings resulting in a final decree could take place, a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1953 was issued and the proceedings before the revenue court under Section 176 of the Act abated. At this stage, it may be mentioned that even though the notification under section 4 is said to have been published on 26.07.1986 but order abating the proceedings was passed earlier on 11.06.1986 for which there is no explanation .as to how this happened but this does not have a material bearing on the matter as it does not make much of a difference whether proceedings abated on 11.07.1986 or 26.07.1986 and this issue does not appear to have been raised before the Court below.
(2.) After abatement of proceedings before the revenue court, objections under Section 9-A(2) were filed by the petitioner herein before the Consolidation Officer in the consolidation proceedings for determination of his right viz-a-viz the land in question. In the said proceedings the respondents herein brought on record certified copy of the preliminary decree dated 01.03.1986 passed by the revenue court based on the compromise entered into between the parties in respect of land in question.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer accordingly rejected the objections of the petitioner in view of the said order. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11(1) before the Settlement Officer of consolidation which was allowed on the ground that as per the admitted pedigree the petitioner herein i.e. the appellants before the appellate court, had ? share whereas in the compromise they were given only ? share and also that even though the preliminary decree had been passed but the proceedings never culminated in a final decree. The appellate court opined that once a suit has abated then all rights in respect of agricultural land are to be determined afresh in the consolidation proceeding right from very beginning, therefore, according to him the preliminary decree had no legal effect on these proceedings.;