Point of Law : A compromise having been filed before the Consolidation Officer, was not verified in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954, where it has been specifically provided that the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer before whom the compromise is placed, will verify from the Village Level Consolidation Committee about the compromise filed by the parties and also avoid proceeding against any party to the compromise ex parte.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. These are the two writ petitions filed by Gokaran Nath (now substituted) along with heirs of Ayodhya Prasad his brother, against orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities on objections filed by the Predecessor in interest of the respondent nos. 4 to 8 on Section 9A(2) objections and on application under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Consolidation of Holding Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The facts in both the writ petitions are common stated in the writ petitions that land of Khata Nos.26, 27, 106 and 107 are situated in village Nibia Raibhoja, Tehsil Naanpara district Bahraich. The Land of Khata number 26 was recorded solely in the name of Gokaran Nath where as land of Khata number 27 was jointly recorded in the name of Gokarannath and Anand Swaroop the father of opposite party number 2 to 8 with one half share each Land of Khata number 106 was recorded jointly in the name of Gokarannath along with his three brothers all sons of Raghunandan Prasad, with one fourth share of each and land of Khata number 107 was recorded jointly in the name of Gokarannath and his three brothers sons of Raghunandan Prasad and Anand Swarup grandson of Mahadev Prasad To the tune of one fifth share each In the basic year Khatauni.

2. During consolidation operations objections were filed under the section 9A2 by Anand Swaroop and the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed orders on 2212 1986 and on 23.12.986 on the basis of conciliation directing that land of Khata number 27 and all other Khatas be recorded in the name of Gokaran Nath and his three brothers, sons of Raghunandan Prasad, and also in the name of Anand Swaroop Grandson of Mahadeo Prasad. Land of all Khatas except Khata number 26 were treated as ancestral land and Gokaran Nath and his three brothers and Anand Swaroop were all given 1/5 share in each of the Khatas. The order dated 22 December 1986 and 23 December 1986 passed by the ACO under section 9A2 was implemented in the records and Chak of the parties were carved out under section 21 of the Act. The extract of CH form 23 has been filed as Annexure 6 to the petition.

3. After the death of Anand Swarup his legal heirs the opposite parties number 4 to 8 filed a time barred appeal against the orders dated 22 December 1986 and 23 December 1986. It has been stated that without any notice or summons being served upon the petitioner number one and other respondents to the appeal, the Appeal was allowed and the matter remanded ex-parte on 28 February 1990. After remand of the case On 5.1.1991 an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer that in spite of publication in the Gazette the defendant Gokarannath was not present and the case would proceed ex-parte against him and fixed the date of 22 January 1991 for hearing.

4. On 28.09.1991 a forged compromise was filed on behalf of the opposite party number 4 to 8 through their advocate Shri Ram Narayan Mishra. One Dushyant Kumar Mishra advocate who was the Junior of Shri Ram Narayan Mishra filed power in the name of Ayodhya Prasad and Mahavir Prasad, sons of Raghunandan, but neither Ayodhya Prasad nor Mahavir Prasad had ever engaged him. On the basis of such compromise the Consolidation Officer assumed that the land in question was the ancestral property of the petitioners and the respondents acquired by their common ancestor Vikramjeet Tiwari And determined the share of opposite party number 4 to 8 as one fourth share each and the share of the petitioners as One eighth each. Aggrieved by such order which was passed behind the back of the petitioner Number 1 and his brothers; and on coming to know of the order dated 22 February 1992.the petitioners filed appeals.

5. It has been submitted that neither Gokarannath or nor any of his brothers signed the compromise. No compliance was made of rule 25 A of the Rules of 1954. The application under Rule 109 A2 of the rules Was made only in August 2008 and after deriving knowledge of order passed