Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is an unfortunate case.

2. It is said that India lives in villages. The villagers are generally innocent and simple persons but there are some who are crooked and land grabbers amongst them. Many times, the Courts of law are used by such persons to get the seal of approval of their nefarious activities. They play fraud on Court as well on their fellowmen. It is really shocking, as in the present case the Presiding Officer who had retired, was hand in gloves with such persons and with the help of Ex Presiding Officer as it has been found, the petitioners got fabricated a case file wherein ante-dated order has been prepared to grab the property in dispute.

3. The present writ petition arises out of the proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act’). The dispute is with regard to ½ share of plot No. 326 (new Chak No. 295), area 3.363 Acre, which in the basic year, was recorded in the name of two brothers Ramanuj and Rama Sankar.

4. Ramanuj Rai has expired on June, 1998. The contesting respondents (sons) applied for mutation of their names in the revenue record then they came to know about an order dated 1st May, 1998 passed on the basis of compromise application. An application to recall and for setting aside the said order was filed by them alongwith another application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The review of the order was sought for on the ground that the order dated 1st May, 1998 has been obtained by the present petitioners by playing fraud and the said order is totally without jurisdiction and non est as it could not have been passed, in the absence of any reference made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by the Consolidation Officer directly. It was stated that their father never executed any unregistered sale-deed nor he engaged any counsel nor he entered into any such compromise. In addition to filing of the restoration application, they reported the matter to the District Magistrate who is District Deputy Director of Consolidation. The District Magistrate directed the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) to conduct inquiry and submit a report in this regard. On inquiry, the allegations of the respondents No. 2 and 3 were found to be correct. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) treated the application as revision under Section 48(1) of the Act and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 30th October, 2000 whereby he quashed the order dated 1st May, 1998 which was obtained by the petitioners, according to the impugned order by playing fraud.

5. It appears that the petitioners herein Rikhdev and Satdev sons of Sri Jhuri filed a belated objection directly before the Consolidation Officer, though under the said Act it should have been filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, claiming bhumidhari right over the aforesaid land on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed. A compromise purporting to have been signed by Ramanuj, father of respondents No. 2 and 3 was filed accepting the claim of the petitioners and the objections were decided in terms of the said compromise by the order dated 1st May, 1998 whereby their father allegedly entered into a compromise with the petitioners for recording of their names. The said compromise order has been found to have been obtained fraudulently.

6. Heard Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singh alongwith Shri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

7. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be divided into two categories.

8. Firstly, the finding recorded in the impugned order with regard to fraud, is incorrect and is vitiated.

9. Secondly, the revision before the respondent No. 1 was not maintainable as the application for setting aside t