Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard Sri R.C. Singh Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri Sankatha Rai Advocate on behalf of contesting respondents.

2. The order dated 1.7.2004 passed by respondent No. 1, order dated 13.11.1997 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 30.7.1976 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, are impugned in the instant writ petition.

3. Claim of petitioners is that they are in cultivatory possession till date and continued to be as such since ever after completion of consolidation proceedings in the village.

4. Dispute relates to plot Nos. 1026/1 and 1026/2 situated on the road side. Petitioners’ claim is that plots in question are of high commercial value. Petitioners and contesting respondents belong to different family and caste. The respondents started gathering building materials on the disputed plots, which was objected by petitioners and it is at that stage, it came to the knowledge of petitioners that respondents have got their name recorded on the basis of certain orders passed when consolidation proceedings had started way back in the year 1976.

5. Petitioner No. 1 Dahari Lal is an uneducated and rustic villager who lived in the village and looked after agriculture. Petitioner No. 2 Harihar Lal and petitioner No. 3 Tileshar Lal are in service out of the State of U.P. They were working in West Bengal, therefore, proceedings at the instance of contesting respondents were carried out without any notice and behind their back.

6. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that when respondents wanted to make certain construction on the disputed plots, petitioners started making inquiry. After inspection of record, it transpired that respondent No. 3 taking advantage of the fact that Harihar Lal and Tileshar Lal were residing in West Bengal and Dahari Lal being a man of feeble intelligence got interpolation in CH Form 2A in connivance with consolidation authorities. After the aforesaid forged entries in respect of plot Nos. 1026/1 and 1026/2, a forged and fictitious compromise allegedly signed by petitioners and members of consolidation committee was produced before Assistant Consolidation Officer. Signature of Harihar Lal and Tileshar Lal and left thumb impression of Dahari Lal were endorsed on the said compromise, which according to petitioners are fictitious. On the basis of this alleged compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on 10.7.1976 in case No. 6180 allowing objection of respondents under Section 9A (2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

7. Most of area of the disputed plots was set apart from consolidation scheme and only a part of it was included in the consolidation, which is situated on the road side and is in a close vicinity of market area thereby having high commercial value.

8. Sri R.C. Singh Advocate has emphasized that all these proceedings were carried out behind back of petitioners. They had no information or notice whatsoever. On inspection of file, it revealed that entries of CH Form 2A was also in different handwriting and ink as well. These entries were on the basis of the forged compromise.

9. Petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Act, but it was evidently quite belated. Reasons for preferring the appeal beyond limitation was sufficiently explained and the entire facts were brought to the notice of the Court. However, appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 13.11.1997 on the ground that village stood denotified and in view of Section 52 of the Act, appeal was not maintainable after lapse of such an inordinate delay. Revision preferred against the said order stands dismissed, which is also under challenge.

10. Petitioners’ counsel has laid stress on a number of decisions of this Court; Ram Bahadur v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1973 Allahabad page 414 (DB), Jiwa Ram and another v. Dy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1973 Alla