ORDER

1. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BY HIS ORDER DATED 12-5-1983, DISPOSED OF REVISIONS NOS. 1493 AND 1494 IN TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BEFORE HIM AND RECORDED THE COMPROMISE. THEREAFTER AN APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 19-5-2000 BY APPELLANT 1 FOR RECALL OF THE SAID ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPROMISE WAS FORGED AND FABRICATED. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BY HIS ORDER DATED 5-6-2002, DISMISSED THIS APPLICATION WITHOUT HOLDING ANY INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE COMPROMISE WAS GENUINE OR NOT. IF ANY OF THE PARTIES HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE RECORDING OF COMPROMISE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT GENUINE INASMUCH AS IT DID NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE AFFECTED PARTY, IN THAT EVENT, THE COURT, WHICH RECORDED THE COMPROMISE, IS REQUIRED TO HOLD AN INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE COMPROMISE AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES TO LEAD ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE SAID QUESTION, WHICH PROCEDURE HAVING NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT ARE FIT TO BE SET ASIDE.

4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ON 5-6-2002, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST APPELLANT FOR RECALL OF ITS ORDER DATED 12-5-1983, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT UPHOLDING THE SAME ARE SET ASIDE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE PETITION FOR RECALL IS CONDONED AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID PETITION FOR RECALL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES TO LEAD ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE GENUINENESS OR D OTHERWISE OF THE COMPROMISE.