Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

2. These are writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 31.3.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DDC’) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1953’) upturning the judgments of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer which were in favour of the petitioners and ruling in favour of Shri Shanti Swaroop.

3. Writ Petition No. 5049(Cons.) of 1986 has been filed by Satish Kumar whose legal heirs have been substituted in his place and the other Writ Petition bearing No. 2843(Cons.) of 1986 has been filed by the persons who purchased the land in question from him. Shri Shanti Swaroop is respondent in both the writ petitions.

4. The facts of the case in brief are as under :

The land in question bearing Gata No. 221 situated at Village-Chandibhanpur. It is an admitted fact that the land in question alongwith other lands in other villages including village Bhanpur was recorded in the name of common ancestor Shri Jagannath Prasad from whom it devolved upon his two sons, namely, Kunwar Bahahdur and Gulshan Rai and from them it devolved upon Shri Satish Kumar (opposite party No. 3) in Writ Petition No. 2843(Cons.) of 1986 and Shri Shanti Swaroop (opposite party No. 2) therein.

5. Consolidation proceedings started in Village Chandibhanpur in 1978. In Basic year Khatauni Gata No. 221 was recorded in the name of Shri Shanti Swaroop as well as Shri Satish Kumar. During ‘partal’ the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2843(Cons.) of 1986 were found to be in possession i.e. Anirudh Singh and Sobaran Lal, who claim to have purchased the share of Shri Satish Kumar vide sale-deed dated 2.6.1973. Shri Shanti Swaroop filed objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 claiming title over the entire Gata No. 221 based on a compromise said to have been entered into with Shri Satish Kumar on 22.9.1973 in consolidation proceedings relating to Village Bhanpur in proceedings under Section 9-A(2).

6. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of Shri Shanti Swaroop on 18.8.1980 holding that the alleged compromise/family arrangement was illegal and it had not been registered, which was mandatory, as, the subject-matter of the compromise included lands other than those of Village Bhanpur where the consolidation operation was taking place and that in view of the denial of the said compromise by Shri Satish Kumar the same was required to be proved by Shri Shanti Swaroop, which had not been done. It was also held that the alleged compromise/family arrangement was inequitable and as a consequence of it Shri Shanti Swaroop got much more land than Shri Satish Kumar.

7. Being aggrieved Shri Shanti Swaroop filed an appeal under Section 11(1) before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SOC’) but the said appeal was also dismissed on 25.3.1983 affirming the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. Shri Shanti Swaroop filed a revision under Section 48 before the DDC, who allowed the same by the impugned order holding that the compromise was in the nature of family arrangement and was not required to be registered and also that the finding of the Courts below that as a result of compromise Shri Shanti Swaroop had got more land than Shri Satish Kumar was presumptuous, as, the details of the land of other villages, the arrangement in respect thereof was not dealt with. He also observed that Shri Satish Kumar had never challenged the compromise, in appeal.

8. The moot point for consideration herein is as to whether there was a lawful and valid compromise/family arrangement or consent order dated 22.9.1973 which bound the parties thereof and whether it had been acted upon. If so, then Shri Satish Kumar could not have sold his share of Gata No. 221 at Village Chandibhanpur which according to such compromi