K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties is about the share in the disputed Khata. THE petitioner claims 3/4th share in the disputed Khata whereas he has been given 1/2 share by the consolidation authorities on the basis of a compromise between the contesting parties. Aggrieved by the judgments of the consolidation authorities the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. THE petitioner claims 3/4th share in the disputed Khata on the basis of the following pedigree :- Bir Bux Samser Hanuman Hawaldar Udho Hari Shankar According to the petitioner the share of Hanuman in the above pedigree would devolve upon him, therefore, he would be entitled to 3/4th share. It has been stressed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compromise relied upon by the consolidation authorities is no compromise in the eye of law because it did not bear the signatures of the petitioner.
(3.) SECOND contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case burden has been placed on wrong shoulders. According to the learned counsel for tne petitioner it was necessary for the contesting opposite party to have proved the genuineness of the compromise. The bare denial on the part of the petitioner was enough to discard the compromise. The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the compromise was not written by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in his own hand, therefore, the compromise was illegal and could not be acted upon.;