The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise order modifying the chaks of the parties, beyond the scope of the revision, is without jurisdiction and warrants no interference.

Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh for the caveator Gauri Shankar, respondent no. 2.

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby he has allowed a restoration application filed by the caveator, respondent no. 2 and has set aside an order dated 05.06.1999, which was allegedly a compromise order.

3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 866 situated in Village Chitrasenpur, Pargana Kaswar Raja, Tehsil and District Varanasi. Admittedly this plot is valuable road side land as it is situated adjacent to the G.T. Road.

4. The disputed plot appears to have been allotted in the chak of one Kedar Singh, since deceased and succeeded by the respondents 3 to 8.

5. An objection under Section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act appears to have been filed by one Smt. Lalmati praying that the plot no. 866-B be declared chak out.

6. It has been averred in the writ petition that the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 27.05.1989, allowed the objection and plot no. 866 was excluded from consolidation operations. However, copy of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has not been filed on record.

7. The respondents 3 to 8, aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, filed a restoration application on 06.06.1990.

8. The restoration application was rejected and the order rejecting the restoration application was challenged by means of a revision no. 355/887.

9. It appears that the respondents 5 to 8, also filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.05.1989. This appeal was also dismissed on 20.01.1993. Against which order another revision was preferred by said respondents 3 to 8.

10. It appears that both these two revisions were decided on the basis of a compromise, vide order dated 05.06.1999.

11. Against the compromise order, the caveator, respondent no. 2 filed a recall application on 28.05.2009. This restoration application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 after condoning the delay in filing the same on the ground that the signature of the caveator on the compromise differed substantially with his signature on the restoration application.

12. Accordingly, the revisional Court came to the conclusion that the applicant Gauri Shankar was not the signatory to the compromise, as was alleged by him in the restoration application. It is this order which is impugned in the writ petition.

13. From the facts narrated above, it emerges that the two revisions, which were decided by means of a compromise order dated 05.06.1999 arose from proceedings under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. One revision was directed against the order of the Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer Consolidation, whereby plot no. 866 had been excluded from consolidation operations and consequential appeal was dismissed.

14. The other revision had been filed challenging an order dismissing the restoration application filed for recalling the order dated 27.05.1989, whereby plot no. 866 had been declared chak out.

15. However, perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 05.06.1999, allegedly on the basis of a compromise, reveals that by this order not only plot no. 866 has been included in consolidation operations, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also modified the chaks of the parties. A chak road has also been effected as is clear from the perusal of the correction table appended to this order.

16. A pointed query was made to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while dealing with revisions arising out of an objection under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, was competent to pass an order modif