B.Dikshit, J. - (1.) This writ petitions directed against order dated 10-2-1988 passed by Consolidation Officer Antim Abhilekh, Varanasi whereby he set aside the compromise dated 23-11-1987, which has been confirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision by order dated 15-6-1989.
(2.) The dispute refers to plot No. 551 area 4 decimal and plot No. 552 area 1 decimal situated in village Lerhupur, Pargana Sheopur, district Varanasi. A compromise was filed on 23-1-1987 on the basis of which petitioners claim had been accepted. This compromise was set aside by Consolidation Officer by his order dated 10-2-1988 for the reason that there was doubt if Maya Shanker and Satya Narain entered into compromise. No finding has been recorded by the authority concerned in respect of the case of opposite party that it was neither entered into nor signed by Maya Shanker and Satya Narain. In absence of specific finding by Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation that no compromise was entered into by Maya Shanker and Satya Narain with petitioner the compromise cannot be set aside.
(3.) Learned counsel for contesting opposite parties argued that Smt. Indraraji was recorded in the basic year of consolidation and chaks were carved out in her name. According to contesting respondents the publication under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act took place on 21-9-1976 and petitioner did not file any objection for next ten years. According to contesting opposite parties the objection was filed by petitioner on 31-1-1986 which was barred by limitation. The learned counsel further argued that petitioner played fraud upon the consolidation authorities by getting such a compromise recorded as Maya Shanker and Satya Narain who held to have entered into compromise were not recorded and to get their names recorded the petitioner subsequently, after the date of compromise, got a mutation order in favour of father in law of Smt. Indraraji, namely, Purshottam and showing Maya Shanker and Satya Narain as sons of Puroshottam succeeded in getting their names recorded fraudulently. The learned counsel for contesting opposite parties also relied on the case of Smt. Vishuvanathi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation to substantiate his arguments that principles of Order 43 Rule 3 are applicable to proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for recording a compromise. He also relied on the cases of Krishan Mohan Singh v. Sri Chand Gupta and Thakur Ram Lakshman Janki Virajman Mandir v. Mewa Lal , in support of his contention that the compromise should be signed by both parties, which has not been done in the case. Learned counsel for contesting opposite parties also argued that the compromise has not been verified in accordance with law. On the basis of these arguments the learned counsel for contesting opposite parties submitted that this Court may not interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as substantial justice has been done between the parties. All the questions raised by contesting opposite parties have neither been dealt with by the Consolidation Officer nor by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said questions require recording of findings of fact after appreciation of evidence which have not been recorded. In view of this, I am not inclined to record any finding on the questions raised. Keeping it open for contesting opposite parties to raise all said questions before Consolidation Officer, the case is liable to be sent back to him for decision afresh. So far this Court is concerned, as the compromise has been set-aside on the ground of suspicion only, the order is liable to be quashed.;