- (1.) JUDGMENT By means of this petition, the peti­tioner has sought writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09-03-2000 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation-cum-Additional Collector (Nazul), Udham Singh Nagar, order dated 27-12-1996 passed by Settle­ment Officer Consolidation, Kichha, Camp at Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar and order dated 30-03-1996 passed by Consolidation Officer, Kashipur, all contained in Annexure Nos. 7, 5 & 4 re­spectively to the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner Satish Kumar son of late Bhagwan Das had filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Consolida­tion Officer, Kashipur on 06-12-1995 to the effect that the share of the petitioner be declared one-half in plot No. 500/1 measuring 2.92 acres and plot No. 502/1 measuring 5.80 acres, total area 8.72 acres. In reply thereto the respondent No.4- late Pyare lal filed written state­ment stating that in Suit No. 22/25 of 1979-80 which was filed by late Bhagwan Das (father of the petitioner) in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Kashipur under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the parties had entered into compro­mise on 19-05-1981 and the Assistant Collector, Kashipur on 04-08-1981 had accepted the said compromise and held that the compromise between the parties is bonafide family settlement and has been arrived at with a view to end the family dispute. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit and passed order to pre­pare the final decree accordingly. In view of final decree, the Lekhpal prepared the lots. In the meantime father of the peti­tioner died on 20-02-1987 and Harbansh lal died on 20-09-1983. These dates are not disputed by the parties. Order dated 19-05-1988 shows that in the map Kurra No. 2 of late Pyare lal has shown by red ink and Kurra No. 1 of Satish Kumar son of Bhagwan Das has shown by blue dot­ted line. It is also mentioned in the said order dated 19-05-1988 that none of the parties have filed any objection against the Kurra and lots were made final by the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Kashipur. It is pertinent to mention here that no ap­peal was preferred against the final decree or preliminary decree by the petitioner or his predecessor. It was also pleaded by the respondent No.4 that the objections are barred by principles of res judicata and estoppel and is liable to be rejected.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and perusal of records, the learned Consolida­tion Officer, Kashipur did not accept the objections of the petitioner on the ground that there was a compromise between the parties regarding share and the lots which were made final by the Assistant Collec­tor have been recorded in the revenue records in separate Khatas and dismissed the objections accordingly on 30-03-1996. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the appeal under Section 11 of UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolida­tion), Udham Singh Nagar. The appeal was dismissed on the same ground on 27-12-1996.;