Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. The issue is very short, as the matter has now to be examined in the light of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 10th September 2007 in writ petition No. 16761 of 2007. The judgment being precise and which also details the facts necessary for adjudication, is being gainfully reproduced here under:

“Hon’ble Janardan Sahai, J.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally.

The plot in dispute is 2941. It was recorded in the basic year in the name of late Indra Raj father of the petitioners and late Hari Singh father of the respondents 3, 4 and 5. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Indra Raj. The compromise was entered on 31.1.1990 and order of compromise was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 15.2.1990. Against the order dated 15.2.1990 two appeals were filed one by the respondents 3, 4 and 5 and another by the respondents 2, 3 and 4, in the years 2003 and 2004 and were therefore belated and applications for condoning the delay was filed in both the appeals. The Set