JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at admission stage.

2. Instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 29.7.2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') (respondent No. 2).

3. Facts giving rise to present writ petition is that Manager Singh (predecessor in interest of the petitioner) has moved an application under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') claiming his right and title over the property in question, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 10.10.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') on the basis of alleged compromise, which took place on the same day i.e. 10.10.1973 bet