Hon’ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.—Supplementary counter-affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri K.N.Rai, counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the heirs of respondent No. 4 in the said writ petitions.

3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions were connected by order dated 16.4.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15940 of 1999 and have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment as the parties are same in both the cases and the property as well as the dispute involved in both the writ petitions are also similar.

4. The dispute between the parties relate to Plot Nos. 75, 76 and 77 (total area 3.92 acres) situated in Village Neelkanthpur District Ballia (hereinafter referred to as, ‘disputed plots’). It transpires that one Guddar Giri i.e the father of the petitioners was the recorded tenure holder of the disputed plots. Guddar Giri died in 1977. It is an admitted case of the parties that petitioners were minor at the time of the death of Guddar Giri. It also transpires from the records that immediately after the death of Guddar Giri, a suit numbered as Case No. 276, under Section 229-B of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’Act, 1950') was instituted in the Court of Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Ballia by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the petitioners praying for a decree declaring that they were Bhumidar of the disputed plots. The claim of respondents was based on their alleged possession over the disputed plots. In Case No. 276, the petitioners were impleaded as defendants through their mother, Smt. Saraswati Devi. On 11.7.1977, a compromise application signed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and purporting to contain the thumb impression of the mother of the petitioners, was filed in Case No. 276. The application recorded the admission of the mother of the defendants /petitioners admitting the possession and claim of Bhumidhari rights by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 over the disputed plots. It also transpires from the record that on the same date i.e 11.7.1977, an application was also filed by Smt. Saraswati Devi for permission to file a compromise on behalf of the minors. It also transpires that the thumb impression of Smt.Saraswati Devi and signatures of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the compromise application were identified by their counsel. Subsequently, by order dated 22.7.1977, the trial Court accepted the compromise and decreed Case No. 276 in terms of the compromise. Consequently, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were recorded as the tenure holders of the disputed plots in the revenue records relating to the same.

5. On 6.6.1995, the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1963) before the Additional Collector, District Ballia praying that the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1977 be recalled and set aside. It was stated in the application that the mother of the petitioners had not executed any Vakalatnama in favour of any counsel and had also not filed any application in Case No. 276. It was also stated in the application that the mother of the petitioners had not put her thumb impression on the compromise application and had never admitted the claim of the respondents over the disputed plots. It was furter stated by the petitioners that they as well as their mother had no knowledge about the proceeding in Case No. 276 which was held ex parte against them and no notice was served on them in the case. It was alleged that the compromise application dated 11.7.1977 was filed through an imposter and not by the mother of the petitioners and the mother of the petitioners had not obtained any permission from