( 1 ) IN the basic year, the petitioners were recorded over the disputed land. The contesting opposite party Suresh Kumar had filed objection under S. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and had claimed 1/2 share in the disputed land on the basis of a compromise in suit No. 552 of 1956 as mentioned in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. It appears that the claim of the contesting opposite party was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the disputed land did not form part of the decree or it was not subject-matter of the partition suit of the year 1956. It was also asserted that the disputed land was gifted to the petitioners by Lakshmi Narayan (plaintiff of the suit of the year 1956 ). Hence on the date of the compromise the aforesaid Lakshmi Narayan had no right and interest in the property, therefore, the compromise relied upon by the objector Suresh Kumar was not binding upon the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidate have given judgments for the petitioners whereas the revisional court has recognised the claim of the contesting opposite party Suresh Kumar in the present writ petition. Aggriev