Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.K. Dixit learned counsel for opposite party no. 5. Shri Azad Khan has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 4.
(2.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has essentially questioned the correctness of the order dated 27.7.2015 as affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 29.12.2017.
(3.) The background of the controversy lies in the fact that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act was filed by the petitioner claiming declaration on the basis of adverse possession. The record reveals that the suit of the above description was decided on the basis of a compromise vide order dated 4.8.1990. It is on the basis of this order that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record and in the meantime the consolidation proceedings, which came to be notified, were denotified under Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 26.10.2007. After de-notification of consolidation proceedings, one Bhageloo (the original tenure holder) seems to have filed an application for recall of order dated 4.8.1990 on 7.8.2010. The application filed by Bhageloo (the original tenure holder) had assailed the order dated 4.8.1990 on the ground of fraud being played upon by the petitioner. The application for recall of order dated 4.8.1990 was allowed ex parte on 12.8.2011.;