Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard R.K.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kalpnath Rai, learned counsel on behalf of contesting respondent No. 5.

2. Father of respondent No. 5, i.e. Riyasat Hussain filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 1980. Apart from formal parties State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha, there were two defendants. One was Jahoor (Zahoor), father of petitioner and the other was Sharif, Respondent No. 6. Both Jahoor and Sharif were real brothers. It was stated that in the suit compromise had taken place 4.4.1980, however the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise in the year 1995. The suit had been renumbered as Suit No. 610 of 1992. The compromise was shown to have been verified on 4.4.1981. Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise on 5.8.1995. It is not at all understandable as to why the Court took 14 years for decreeing the suit on the basis of compromise.

3. In the year 2004, petitioner, his brothers respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and respondent No. 6 filed restoration application, copy of which is Annexure-IV to the writ petition. In para-5 of the restoration application it was mentioned that Jahoor father of applicant Nos. 2 to 4, who was one of the defendants in the suit had not entered into any compromise and he had also died before the decision of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Jahoor died on 20.9.1994 as stated in para-6 of the writ petition. In para-11 of the writ petition it is mentioned that for execution of compromise decree dated 5.8.1995, respondent No. 5 filed application for mutation in the year 2004. The restoration application was filed on 29.6.2004 (or 21.6.2004). Deputy Collector/ S.D.O., Karvai, Ghazipur through order dated 29.5.2006 rejected the restoration application. Against the order dated 29.5.2006 petitioner filed Revision No. 118 of 2006, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Judicial-II, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on 10.8.2006 hence this writ petition.

4. Shri Kalpnath, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has argued the following points.

1. It is not proved that petitioner’s father died in the year 1994.

2. As advocate of the petitioner’s father appeared before S.D.O. and gave statement on his behalf in 1995 hence it is proved that in the year 1995 he was alive.

3. That merely because in para-6 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that contents of para-6 of the writ petition are denied, it is sufficient denial regarding date of death of petitioner’s father as given in para-6 of the writ petition.

4. The decree which has been passed in the year 1995 could not be set aside through some application filed before the same Court. Petitioner could only file separate suit for cancellation of the decree.

5. In para-8 of the writ petition it was stated as follows :

8. “That on the next date i.e. 22.5.1980 Riyasat Husain fraudulently filed a compromise deed on behalf of the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner had never executed neither signed any compromise deed between the said Riyasat Husain. No summons regarding the pendency of the suit was served on the petitioner’s father. For bare perusal of this Hon’ble Court an extract photo copy of the alleged compromise deed is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition which also shows that the father of the petitioner namely Jahoor has not signed on the alleged compromise deed. A true copy of the order-sheet is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.”

6. Photo-stat copy of the compromise at its bottom mentions that applicants are Sharif, Jahoor and Riyasat. However, at the bottom of that only signatures of Mohd. Sharif are mentioned and towards left side also signatures of Mohd. Sharif are there and below that thumb impression of Riyasat is there however, signatures of Zahoor are not there. In paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit the reply to contents of paragraph-8 of the writ petition is