The court established that appeals can only be filed by parties to the proceedings and no appeal or revision shall lie from any order passed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act except as provided by or under the Act.

( 1 ) IN both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are Involved. They are also directed against the same orders passed by the authorities below in the case relating to same property (in writ Petition No. 24110 of 2001 only order dated 19. 6. 2001, passed by the Deputy Director of consolidation has been challenged while in Writ Petition No. 24875 of 2001 said order dated 19. 6. 2001, as well as order dated 12. 1. 2001, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have been challenged ). Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ petition No. 24110 of 2001 shall be the leading case.

( 2 ) DISPUTE relates to Khata Nos. 118, 130, 31 and 115 of village Chandayan, district Rampur, for short the land in dispute. In the basic year,. the land in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners (Khata No. 118 was recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1, Khata No, 130 in the name of petitioner No. 2, Khata No. 31 in the name of petitioner No. 3 and Khata No. 115 in the name of petitioner No. 4 of the leading case ). The contesting respondents, second set, Himmat singh and others, got their names recorded on the land in dispute vide order dated 16. 11. 1994 by filing an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that there was a compromise between the parties. They also relied upon a family settlement. The aforesaid order was passed ex parte. When the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order, they got the record of the case inspected through an advocate immediately and thereafter preferred four belated appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation along with applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applications filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay were allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 24. 7. 1996. The contesting respondents filed revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the order dated 24. 7. 1996. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the said revisions by his Judgment and order dated 28. 11. 1997. The petitioners, thereafter approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 7519 of 1998. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 8, Arjun Sahakari Samlti also filed a belated objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short the Act, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer condoned the delay by his order dated 20. 12. 1996. Petitioners thereafter filed revision against the said order, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment and order dated 28. 11. 1997. The petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 7520 of 1998 in this Court. While the aforesaid petitions were pending in this Court, respondent No. 2, State of Uttar Pradesh which was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, preferred four highly belated appeals against the judgment and order dated 16. 11. 1994, after six years of the order with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the respondent No. 2, in brief, was that the compromise and the family settlement relied upon by Kulbir Singh and others were collusive, therefore, they amounted to illegal transfers. Consequently, land in dispute vested in the State as provided under Section 189 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

( 3 ) AFTER condoning the delay, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeals filed by the State of U. P. but instead of granting relief to the State Government directed the names of the petitioners of the leading case to be recorded on the land in dispute in the revenue papers after setting aside the order dated 16. 11. 1994, by his order dated 12. 1. 2001. Therefore, the petitioner applied for possession o