A.N. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this writ petition relates to Plot No. 131 measuring 7 Biswas 5 Biswansis situated in village Belware Pargana Aldemau Tahsil Qadipur District Sultanpur. 12 Plots including Plot No. 131, were recorded jointly in the name of the petitioner and his two uncles Mangroo and Paltoo in the basic year Khatauni of 1378F. During consolidation proceedings partition was sought. A compromise dated 23.8.1973 took place between the tenure holders and Ram Asrey opposite party No. 2. We are not concerned with the other plots in this writ petition. However so far as Plot No. 131 is concerned, according to this compromise, the name of Ram Asrey opposite party No. 2 was agreed to be entered. Mutation was done accordingly. In the basic year Khatauni of 1378F, the petitioner was described as minor aged about 10 years under the guardianship of his uncle Paltoo. In the year 1989 the petitioner preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer, Consolidation challenging compromise dated 23.8.1973 on the ground that he was minor at that time and therefore, the compromise was not binding on him. At the time the appeal came up for hearing before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, neither the compromise could be produced before him nor file relating to it was produced. He observed that in the absence of compromise or its file and considering that the petitioner was minor at that time it was difficult to give finding that a compromise was entered. Accordingly, he set aside the compromise so far as plot No. 131 was concerned and maintained it in respect of other plots. He sent back the matter to the Consolidation Officer by means of his order dated 9.3.1992 for deciding the matter on merits. Against this order dated 9.3.1992 Opposite Party No. 2 preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation could decide the revision, the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the order of remand decided the matter on 15.10.92. Opposite Party No. 2 had not appeared before him and therefore, by observing that since entry in the name of Opposite Party No. 2 has already been set -aside and as he has not appeared, there was no justification for keeping the entry in the name of Opposite Party No. 2 and therefore, he disposed of the matter accordingly. On the other hand, the revision preferred by Opposite Party No. 2 against the order of remand was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.7.1994. He observed that the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner after 16 years and no satisfactory explanation was given to explain the delay. The petitioner had become major in the year 1979 and the appeal came to be preferred by him in the year 1989 for which there was no justification. He also observed that Notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act closing consolidation operations had already been issued sometimes in the year 1984. With these observations, he allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 9.3.1992 passed in appeal and ordered mutation accordingly. Aggrieved by this order dated 16.7.1994, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
(2.) THE first question for consideration is as to whether the order dated 15.10.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer after remand is to be given effect to or order dated 16.7.1994 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision has to be implemented. Order dated 15.10.1992 was passed by the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the order of remand dated 9.3.1992. This order of remand was itself subject matter of challenge in the revision. Since order dated 9.3.1992 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer has been set aside in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 16.7.1994, order dated 15.10.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer after remand, loses its importance and the order dated 16.7.1994 has to be implemented. It appears that for this reason also the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time the order dated 23.8.1973 was passed on the basis of compromise, the petitioner was minor aged about 10 years and therefore, compromise was not binding on him. The matter is now about 25 years old. Notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act closing consolidation operations was also issued about 13 years back in the year 1984. The appeal which was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 23.8.1973, was preferred after a considerable delay. Infact, it was filed about 10 years after the petitioner had attained majority. He had given no satisfactory explanation of this delay. In the meantime, the petitioner has also lost the title proceedings initiated by him against Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He has also lost the proceedings launched by him under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Simply because after such a long lapse of time, the compromise and its file is not available, it cannot be said that no valid compromise had taken place. There is a presumption of correctness regarding official acts. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I consider that it is not a fit case in which discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The result is that this writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order is hereby vacated. ;