Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and the order dated 11.5.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial), Gorakhpur Annexure 23 and Annexure 11 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this-case are that one Shri Shambhu Singh who happened to be Bhumidhar of the disputed land sold 3/4 share of his holding through registered sale deed on 21.6.1976 to the petitioner No. 1 and remaining 1/4 share sold in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi, the petitioner No. 2. For the part of the said holding a suit was filed by the petitioner No. 1 under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) against the petitioner No. 2. The said suit was decreed on 16.7.1979 and the several lots were carved out in favour of each petitioner. Plot No. 7 in the said lot was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 and plot No. 19 was allotted in favour of the petitioner No. 2. According to the petitioners, they have entered into the possession after the said decree on their respective shares. It appears that the respondent No. 4, Banshraji has filed suit in the year 1983 under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 in respect of the disputed plots on the allegations that she may be declared as Bhumidhar of the aforesaid land as she had advanced money for purchasing the said land In her name. After contest the suit was dismissed as not maintainable on 31.8.94 by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However after dismissal of the suit Smt. Banshraji has filed a review application No. 23.9.1994 for reviewing the judgment and order dated 31.8.1994.
(3.) IT appears pending review application the respondent No. 4 has also filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The appeal was numbered as 1/B of 1994. After the appeal was filed, the review application was dismissed on 1.6.1998 by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the appeal was presented, there was no reporting with regard to the limitation etc. and the report was sought for that purpose from the office. In his submissions without obtaining any report, without fixing any date in the appeal and without issuing notice to the petitioners a compromise application was filed and the appeal was decided in terms of the compromise on 11.5.1999. It is alleged that the present petitioners were also shown to be signatories on the said compromise.;