Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Triveni Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and S/Sri R.C. Singh and P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents.
(2.) PRECISELY, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Al lahabad committed an error in not honour ing the compromise dated 1.3.1980 and giving rights to the petitioner only in re spect of the Bhumidhari land covered un der the Will of Sheo Pratap Singh dated 2.10.1975 and further giving rights to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to the Sirdari land covered under the aforesaid Will. On the other hand the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in effect did not accept the compromise and therefore rightly passed the order by giving the Bhumidhari land to the petitioner and Sirdari land to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Having considered the submis sions and having perused the record this writ petition is liable to be allowed on a very short point. The Deputy Director of Consoli dation was dealing with two issues; firstly, with regard to the validity of the execution of the Will dated 2.10.1975 and secondly, with regard to the validity of the compro mise dated 1.3.1980. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment has men tioned in paragraph No. 10 that the discus sion with regard to the validity of the com promise dated 1.3.1980 would be made at a later stage and a finding would accordingly be recorded. However, from the perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that subsequent to paragraph No. 10 no discussion or finding has been recorded with regard to the va lidity of the compromise dated 1.3.1980. The discussion made by the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation, either before para graph No. 10 or subsequent to paragraph No. 10 of the judgment, only relates to the validity of the execution of the Will. In this view of the matter the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation stands vitiated, inasmuch as, the genuine ness/correctness of the compromise dated 13.1980 was a relevant issue and no dis cussion or finding having been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the same.
(3.) IN view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Deputy Di rector of Consolidation dated 19.4.1986 im pugned in the present writ petition is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh and record a specific finding with regard to the validity of the compromise dated 1.3.1980. How ever, as there is no dispute with regard to the validity of the execution of the Will dated 2.10.1975 the finding of the Deputy Director to that extent is affirmed. Since this petition is of the year 1986 it would be appropriate that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may make an endeavour to decide the revision expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. It goes without saying that both the parties shall co-operate in the hearing of the revision.;