JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7.

2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 9.5.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/A.D.M. Namamigange, Mirzapur as well as the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mirzapur and order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceeding arising out of Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, one Somaroo was recorded over Gata No. 73/2 and 411/2 of Khata No. 255. A time barred objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on 3.12.1998 by Basedeo (petitioner's father) and Laldeo (respondent no. 7) impleading Laldeo and others for cotenancy right, the case was registered as Case No. 1698. Somaroo had died during pendency of the objection before Consolidation Officer. A compromise was entered into in the aforementioned Case No. 1698 between petitioner and respondent no. 7 (natural father and guardian of respondent no. 6) by compromise deed dated 25.11.1999, which was verified by their counsel. Accordingly, Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.4.2001 allowed the objection on the basis of compromise after condoning the delay in filing the objection by separate order and ordered to record the name of petitioner's father Basedeo over Plot Nos. 73/2 and 411/2. Notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act took place on 16.9.2006 in the village in question. Respondent no. 6, Panna Lal filed an application before Consolidation Officer on 18.8.2017 against the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer stating that he (Panna Lal) was minor during the period of consolidation and came to know about the order dated 4.4.2001 on 6.8.2017 when the interference was made with possession of the petitioner. The basis of claim of respondent no. 6 is registered adoption deed alleged to be executed on 20.11.1998 by Somaroo in favour of respondent no. 6 (Panna Lal). Petitioner filed an objection to the restoration application and delay condonation application filed by respondent no. 6. Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.7.2009 allowed the restoration application giving benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act and set aside the earlier order dated 4.4.2001 fixing a date 18.7.2019 for further proceedings. Against the order dated 4.7.2019 petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 27.12.2019. The revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner against the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.5.2022, hence this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that objection under Section 9A-2 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the parties were decided on the basis of compromise. The result of which, petitioner's father was ordered to be recorded expunging the name of Somaroo but respondent no. 6 on the basis of manipulated gift deed, has setup his claim through belated restoration application after 16 years and the Consolidation Officer without giving cogent reason has allowed the restoration application. He further submitted that application for recall filed by respondent no. 6 on 18.8.2017 was not maintainable as notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act had already taken place on 16.9.2006. He placed reliance upon, Hari Ram vs. D.D.C. Azamgarh, 1989 R.D. 281, on the point of Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He next submitted that even no condition has been imposed for allowing the