The main legal point established is that orders passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure and without illegality are not subject to being quashed through a writ petition.

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Shri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24.1.2000 and 30.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 and 1 respectively and with a further prayer to quash the order dated 17.11.1980 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.), Ghaziabad.

3. On a perusal of the record, it transpires that during the consolidation proceedings in the village, a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and respondents No. 5 to 27 regarding their share in the holdings under consolidation. The aforesaid compromise was signed and executed on 17.11.1980 and on the basis of the terms of the aforesaid compromise an order was passed by A.C.O.on the same date i.e. on 17.11.1980 deciding the dispute between the parties. The compromise allegedly contains the name and thumb impression of the petitioner as well as his brother Shri Amar Singh. Subsequently, the holdings were partitioned in pursuance to the order dated 17.11.1980. However, in 1996 the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9(A) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') claiming his 1/2 share in property as against 1/12 share that was agreed to in the compromise dated 17.11.1980. The Consolidation Officer, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 28. 1. 1997 dismissed the objection of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner may file an appeal against the order dated 17.11.1980 passed by A.C.O., Ghaziabad and objections under Section 9(A) of the Act, 1953 were not maintainable. The petitioner filed appeals No. 454 of 1997, 273 of 1997, 103 of 1997, 52 of 1997, 213 of 1997 and 136 of 1997 under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S. O.C.’), Ghaziabad against the order dated 17.11.1980 passed by A.C.O., Ghaziabad. The aforesaid appeals were dismissed by S.O.C., Ghaziabad vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 on the ground that compromise dated 17.11.1980 was recorded and the consequential order dated 17.11.1980 was passed by A.O.C., Ghaziabad after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 25-A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1954') and the petitioner was not able to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the Appeals as well as on the ground that the petitioner was not able to produce any record to prove his share in all the disputed holdings. Against the order dated 24.1.2000 passed by S.O.C., Ghziabad dismissing the appeals of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Revisions No. 176/38, 177/39, 174/36 and 175/37 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, ‘D.D.C.’), Ghaziabad, which have also been dismissed by the D. D. C. vide his judgment and order dated 30.11.2000.

4. I have perused the record. The appeals were filed 17 years after the order dated 17.11.1980 passed by A.O.C., Ghaziabad, which was passed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. It is noteworthy that in the memorandum of appeal and in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application filed alongwith the said appeals, the petitioner has not stated that he had no knowledge of the order dated 17.11.1980 or that he had not put his thumb impression on the compromise dated 17.11.1980. In the aforesaid appeals it has also not been stated by the petitioner that the compromise and the consequential order dated 17.11.1980 passed by A.C.O., Ghaziabad has been passed without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 25-A of Rules, 1954. It is evident from record and from the orders passed by respondents that the order dated 17.11.1980 was passed by the A.O.C., Ghaziabad on a compromise recorded according to the procedure prescribed in Rule 25-A of