SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) Heard Shri P .K.Keshri, counsel for the petitioners, Shri R.K.Bind, counsel for respondent no.8 as well as Shri Prem Shanker Kushwaha holding brief of Shri Satish Dwivedi representing respondent nos.4/1 to 4/5, 5, 6 & 7.
(2.) The facts of the case are that in the basic year, one Shri Kunwar Bahadur, the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 8 was recorded as tenure holder of the disputed plots. The petitioners filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) on which Case No.17 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O). The said case was dismissed in default vide order dated 28.8.1984 passed by the C.O. The petitioners did not file any recall application for recall of the order dated 28.8.1984 and for restoring Case No.17 but filed a second objection and got registered another Case No.2287 of 1986 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 before the C.O praying that they may be declared Sirdar of the disputed plots on the basis of their adverse possession over the disputed plots. Subsequently, a compromise dated 21.8.1986 was filed before the C.O which was ostensibly signed by the petitioners and Kunwar Bahadur. The C.O. vide his order dated 21.8.1986 allowed the objections of the petitioners in terms of the compromise.
(3.) It appears from the record that some times in 1986, a notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 was also published but by that date, the petitioners were not recorded either as Bhumidar or Sirdar of the disputed plots in the consolidation records. After the order dated 21.8.1986 passed by the C.O, Kunwar Bahadur executed a sale deed dated 29.7.1987 in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7. The petitioners were recorded in the revenue records relating to the disputed plots on 21.2.1990, i.e. after publication of the notification under Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953. It appears that when respondent nos. 4 to 7 came to know about the entries in the revenue records and the order dated 21.8.1986 passed by the C.O, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed an application before the C.O for recall of the order dated 21.8.1986 along with an application to condone the delay in filing the same. The recall application was filed on 23.3.1990. Subsequently, Kunwar Bahadur also filed an application on 5.4.1990 for recall of the order dated 21.8.1986. The recall application filed by Kunwar Bahadur was supported by an affidavit and along with the said application, Kunwar Bahadur also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the recall application. In the affidavit filed in support of the recall application, Kunwar Bahadur stated that the order dated 21.8.1986 had been passed without issuing any notice to Kunwar Bahadur and behind his back implying that the comprise was not signed by him. Kunwar Bahadur died during the pendency of the recall application before the C.O. While the recall application was still pending before the C.O, respondent no.8 and respondent nos. 4 to 7 also filed separate appeals under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C). The said appeals were filed on 25.9.1992 along with applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The appeal filed by respondent nos. 4 to 7 was numbered as Appeal No.258 and the appeal filed by respondent no.8 was numbered as Appeal No.259. The appeals were allowed by order dated 21.9.1993 passed by the S.O.C and the order dated 21.8.1986 passed by the C.O was set aside. Through his order dated 21.9.1993, the S.O.C further directed that the respondent nos. 4 to 8 be recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots.;