- (1.) Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1&2.
(2.) In the present case, the petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order passed by the consolidation officer on 26.8.1987 and the judgment and order passed by the DDC on 9.9.09 and subsequent order dated 26.10.09 by which the DDC, Basti had declined to recall its earlier order passed on 9.9.09. It emerges from the record a title dispute between the contesting parties was adjudicated upon and finalized in the year 1969 on 16.1.1969 by the C.O. This order was passed under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act on merits. Devi Shanker, the present petitioner had filed an appeal before the SOC and the same was dismissed. A revision was also preferred against the appellate order passed by the SOC which was also dismissed. Thus the order passed by the C.O. on 16.1.1969 became final and had binding effect on the parties.
(3.) It is relevant to mention that after the judgment and order dated 16.1.1969, the relevant entries ought to have been recorded in the record relating to consolidation. It appears that the order dated 16.1.1969 was not given effect to by making correction in the record. The entry in the revenue papers ought to have been corrected and the possession must have been handed over to the party in whose favour the judgment and order dated 16.1.1969 was passed. In the meantime, Section 52 notification was published. The respondents had filed an application under Rule 109 of C.H. Rules for correction in the record and seeking entry in the revenue papers. The consolidation officer had passed an order on 3.9.86. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order on various grounds. His application was dismissed by the consolidation officer and the on appeal the fabricated compromise was produced and the order was passed by the SOC. The DDC has taken note that the Assistant SOC Sri Alok Kumar ought to have disposed of the appeal on merit and it has placed reliance on a manufactured fabricated compromise and rendered a judgment on 8.6.07. This order was challenged and a judgment was rendered by the DDC on 9.9.09.;