A compromise decree from a partition suit is binding and determines the share of the parties. Consolidation authorities are bound by the decree passed by constituted regular courts and cannot go behind the same.

Krishna Murari, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.4.1976, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and to modify the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the extent that share of the petitioner may be declared 1/3rd in the property in dispute.

2. I have heard Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

3. The dispute relates to khata Nos. 35, 83, 85, 30, 89 and 59 of village Khojaon and khata Nos. 9, 10 and 65 of village Ram Deia.

4. In basic year khatauni the name of the petitioner was recorded over khata Nos. 36, 85 and 83 situate

in village Khojaon and khata No. 9 of Ram Deia. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9A (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) alleging that her name was recorded over all the khatas of two villages but it was wrongly left out from some of the khatas. She claimed 1/3rd share in all the khatas on the ground that land in dispute was an ancestral property. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents on the ground that a suit No. 34 of 1963 under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by the petitioner, for partition of the property. During the pendency of the suit the parties settled the dispute amicably by entering into a family arrangement. A compromise was filed in the suit on the basis of said family arrangement and the suit was decreed accordingly. A subsequent application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the compromise decree was rejected. Thereafter, a Regular Suit No. 216D of 1966 filed by her for setting aside the compromise decree was abated. In view of the compromise decree, she is only entitled to the land allotted in her share as per the said decree dated 17.6.1963. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.12.1972 allowed the objection and held that the petitioner had 1/3rd share in the khatas. He however, did not pass any order with regard to khata No. 9 of village Ram Deia on the ground that the same was out of consolidation. In appeal filed by the contesting respondents, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation accepted the final decree prepared on the basis of the compromise in the partition suit. He however, held that the petitioner will have 1/5th share and respondents will have 2/5th share in disputed khatas. Against the appellate order two revisions were filed ; one by the petitioner claiming that she was entitled to 1/3rd share in all the khatas and other was filed by the contesting respondents challenging the determination of the shares of the parties in specific khatas by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the ground that since a final decree was prepared in the partition suit and accordingly ‘kurras’ were allotted in the share of the of parties hence, it was not open to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to redetermine the share of parties in the khatas in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents while the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that compromise decree passed in partition suit is in variance with the share to which the petitioner is entitled under law as such the same is not binding. It has further been urged that the Consolidation Officer rightly did not place any reliance on the compromise decree and determined her share to be 1/3rd and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have wrongly rejected her claim placing reliance on the compromise decree which is not binding.

6. I have gone through the record of the case and the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. A Suit No. 34 of 1963 under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L