JUDGMENT

K.N. Misra, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned orders passed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:

It appears that during consolidation operations Smt. Kanti Devi widow of Late Badri Prasad of village Mustafa, Pargana Kora, Tahsil Binkdi, district Fetehpur was declared as co-sharer along with Kamta Prasad son of Nandi Lal over the plots in question. This order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 6.10.62. It was, however, omitted to be incorporated in the papers and in the meantime the village was denotified u/s 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Since the name of Smt. Kanti Devi was not recorded as co-tenure holder along with the Petitioner Kamta Prasad in the revenue papers in pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, she had moved an application for correction of papers u/s 33, 39 of Land Revenue Act. It was prayed that the revenue records be corrected and her name be recorded as co-tenure holder along with Kamta Prasad. This application for correction of papers was opposed by Kamta Prasad; firstly, on the ground that after lapse of ten years the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be incorporated in the revenue records on her application for correction of revenue records moved u/s 33, 39 of the Land Revenue Act. Secondly it was also asserted that on the basis of subsequent compromise between the parties, the applicant Smt. Kanti Devi cannot be recorded as co-sharer. It was alleged that the compromise was affected between the parties on 9.11.1963 before the Consolidation Officer after the aforesaid decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and, as such, her name cannot be recorded. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 5.8.1972 allowed the application for correction of papers and directed the name of Smt. Kanti Devi to be recorded as co-tenure holder along with Kamta Prasad on the plots in question on the basis of aforesaid order dated 1.2.1963 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. The Appellant had filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer copy of the judgment and order dated 28.2.1962 passed by the Consolidation Officer and also the order dated 9.4.1962 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The order dated 6.10.1962 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation confirming the orders of the subordinate consolidation authorities were also filed. The order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation dt. 1.2.63 was also filed. In view of all these orders wherein claim of Smt. Kanti Devi was upheld, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had directed correction of papers to be made for recording the name of Smt. Kanti Devi as co-tenure holder along with Kamta Prasad. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order dated 5.4.1975 has considered the argument advanced on behalf of the revisionist to the effect that the earlier order passed by the consolidation authorities could not be enforced because subsequently there was a compromise between the parties in which Smt. Kanti Devi had given up her claim. It has been observed by the Additional Commissioner that the alleged compromise appears to be fictitious and no reliance can be placed on this compromise. He has assigned good reasons for coming to that conclusion. The compromise was not personally signed by Smt. Kanti Devi. Learned Counsel had stated that it was signed by Mukhtar. Such a compromise in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, could not in my opinion be binding on the lady. The revision filed by the Petitioner against the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as by the Additional Commissioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 20.4.1985 confirming the findings recorded by the lower revisional court. These orders have been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petition