Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—These three connected writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the same orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in respect of the same land involving similar controversy and as such all the three writ petitions are being decided by this one and common judgment.

2. Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 32876 of 2007 and 32967 of 2008 as well as Sri P.K.S. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 28821 of 2007 and Sarvasri Rajesh Yadav, Jai Singh Parihar, R.S. Saroj, U.N. Pandey, M.C. Singh, D.P. Singh, Prabhat Singh, Pradeep Chandra and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records also.

3. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 4th May, 2007, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautam Buddh Nagar, orders dated 2.8.2006 and 27.5.2005 (in Writ Petition No. 28821 of 2007), passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the orders dated 7.10.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the controversy involved in the present writ petitions are that the land in dispute situate in Village Jaganpur Afzalpur, Pargana and Post, Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, measuring 80 Bighas 14 Bisawas, was under the ownership of Charan Singh, Son of Pyare Lal, resident of the said Village. The said agricultural land in dispute was sold by the original tenureholder, Charan Singh, on 2.4.1962 by executing a registered sale-deed registering the same in the office of the concerned Sub Registrar in favour of Rishal, Son of Devi Sahai, Rishal, Son of Ganga, Ramphal, Son of Dhuliya, Tunda, Son of Jahariya and Shanti, Son of Data Ram. The copies of the sale-deeds have been annexed as Annexures to the writ petition. The land was mutated in the revenue records and according to the petitioners’ counsel no one had raised any objection in the year 1962 and therefore the mutation was carried. The land in dispute stood recorded in the name of the above five persons. The entries were made in the Basic Year Khatauni of 1359 Fasali. These entries were carried on in 1371 Fasali and thereafter in the Khatauni of 1389 Fasali, these revenue entries continued in the revenue records. The copies of the revenue entries and in the Basic Year Khataunis have been annexed as Annexures alongwith the writ petitions. The numbers and details of the land has been quoted in Paragraph No. 7 of Writ Petition No. 32867 of 2007. The shares of the tenureholders were also defined. At the time of verification of some Khataunis, some mistakes had crept in. A reference was made on 14.1.1986 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.

5. It has been submitted that the petitioners were residing in the State of Haryana and as such no notice in respect of reference could be received by them. Under these compelling circumstances, the petitioners could not participate in the reference proceedings and pursue their case, but the Consolidation Officer had continued with the proceedings. The allegation is that on 7.10.1986, a forged and fabricated compromise was filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 47 before the Consolidation Officer. A copy of the ordersheet of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer has been enclosed alongwith the writ petition. On the basis of this forged, fabricated and manufactured compromise, alleged to have been entered into between the parties on 7.10.1986, the Consolidation Officer had rendered his judgment on the same day itself, that is, on 7.10.1986.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out several irregularities and illegalities in the proceedings and challenged the compromise as well as the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the said alleged forged, fabricated and manufactured compromise.

7. It was highlighted by the learn