Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The present writ petition arises out of suit No. 17/123/337/944 of 1996 instituted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein against the petitioners under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of the plot No. 2579 (old), new number 1553 situate in village Tumurki, Tehsil Sahabad, District- Hardoi. The said plot was sold by the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12 by means of sale-deed dated 18th of February, 1969. The plot in question is a grove. The background facts of the case may be noted in brief.

2. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the contesting private respondents were the co-tenants of number of plots namely 2579, 2914, 2615, 2462, 2468, 2412, 2902. During the consolidation operation, the parties entered into a compromise on 30th of June, 1965 whereby they agreed with regard to the allotment of the plots to the extent of their shares. With respect to the plot in dispute i.e. the old plot No. 2579, the common case of the parties is that under the said compromise it was agreed upon that the names of Munne Khan, Wahidullah Khan and Ismail Khan, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be expunged and the name of other co-tenure holders may remain recorded. The Consolidation Officer while delivering the judgment in the light of the compromise instead of ordering the expunction of name of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ordered that the names of other co-tenure holders i.e. the contesting private respondents herein, be expunged from the record of the said plot. It consequently passed order on 30.6.1965, the date when the compromise was filed. CH Form 41 and 45 were prepared in the light of the order of the Consolidation Officer and the consolidation proceedings in the village were denotified by the notification sometimes in the year 1967. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein on 18th of February, 1969 executed the sale-deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12.

3. After about one month, a suit for declaration by the private respondents herein of their title with respect to plot in dispute, on the basis of compromise giving rise to the present writ petition was filed. They came out with the case that by mistake or omission, instead of ordering the expunction of the names of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, it ordered the expunction of the names of the plaintiffs who are contesting respondents herein. The plaintiffs were under the belief that the order dated 30th of June, 1965 has been passed in conformity of the compromise and they came to know later on about the discrepancy in the order. It was pleaded by them that in pursuance of the error in the order dated 30th of June, 1965, the mutation entries in the revenue record were recorded wrongly, against the spirit of the compromise.

4. Two sets of the written statements were preferred by the defendants. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed a written statement stating that it was wrongly mentioned in the compromise that they have no concern with the disputed land or the disputed plot exclusively belongs to the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and 9. In CH Form 45 their names have been recorded which is final document as a result of consolidation.

5. The another set of written statement was preferred by the petitioner Nos. 4 to 12, the purchasers, on the pleas inter alia that in the compromise it was agreed upon that the grove plot No. 2579 may be given to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in exchange of grove plot No. 2564. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are illiterate persons and had no knowledge about the terms of the agreement and they intended that in the compromise it may be mentioned that the plot in dispute be exclusively given to them. The Consolidation Officer’s order is correct. There being no error in the order of the Consolidation Officer, the said order cannot be challenged in any Court. The suit is barred under Section 49 of the CH Act and they are bona fide purchasers for valu