The Assistant Consolidation Officer's jurisdiction to pass orders based on conciliation is limited to cases where objections or disputes are filed. Compromises involving a minor's interest must comply with legal requirements, and the officer cannot grant permission without jurisdiction.

By means this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 3-4-1980, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, as contained in Annexure-6 to the petition and the order dated 28-9-1977, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

2. Deputy relates to khata No. 436, having an area of 2 bighas and Khata No. 486, having an area of 23 bighas,16 biswas situated in village Ainjar, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil and District Sultanpur. In the basic year Khatauni, Khata No. 486 was recorded in the name of Petitioners, Ram Ji and Shyam Ji, whereas khata No. 436 was recorded in the name of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3.

3. It would be relevant to mention at this very stage that petitioner No. 2, Shyam Ji was minor and at the time of filing of the petition he was alleged to be aged about 11 years. Opposite party No. 1, Shri Shyam Lal died during the pendency of the Petition and his sons, S/shri Sant Ram and Net Ram have been substituted as his legal representatives.

4. It is said that during the consolidation proceeding some compromise was filed by the petitioners and opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 before Assistant Consolidation Officer, whereby it was agreed that 1/3 share of the aforesaid two khatas 486 and 436 will belong to opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, whereas the rest 2/3 in the said Khatas will be held y the petitioners. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on 28-9-1977, on which date, the compromise is said to have been filed by the parties before him. He directed the correction of the entries in the revenue record on the basis of the said compromise (the copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the petition ). The petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Sultanpur on 2-2-1978 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Settlement Officer (C) after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for disposal according to law. Opposite Parties 1 to 3 filed a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was registered as Revision No. 1271. It was decided on 3-4-1980. The revision was allowed and the order of the Settlement Officer (C) was set aside. The compromise filed by the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was held to be valid. It is this order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and also the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which have been challenged before this Court through this writ petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records.

6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was no objection raised during the consolidation proceedings either at the stage of field to field partal or under Section 9 (2) of the said Act and since there was no objection and no dispute between the parties, the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not competent to record any compromise. This argument has been advanced in addition to the argument that there no compromise at all between the parties and there was no such occasion even for the parties to file compromise, when there existed no dispute between them. It has also been submitted for one of the petitioners, namely, Shyam Ji who was then a minor that no guardian as required under Rule 14 of the Rules framed under Section 54 of the Act was appointed nor any permission was sought for from any competent Court as required under Order XXXII, Rule 7 CPC and Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

7. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there was in fact a dispute and a case was registered wherein the impugned order was passed, so it is not correct to say that the order was passed without there being any case or dispute before the Assistant Conso