A suit under Section 229 B is not maintainable once land rights are finalized during consolidation, enforcing the jurisdictional bar under Section 49 of the relevant Act.

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and Sri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned Additional CSC for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 07.07.2025, S.D.M. Patti, Pratapgarh and C.R.O. Pratapgarh are present before this Court in person.

3. The affidavit filed by learned Additional CSC today in Court may be taken on record.

4. The petitioner has died and there are two substitution applications which are allowed but due to some inadvertent mistake, the incorporation could not be made, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation during course of the day.

5. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 17.03.1999 passed by respondent No.1 contained as annexure 1 to the writ petition and order dated 19.06.2002 passed by respondent No.4 contained as annexure 2 to the writ petition.

6. Factual matrix of the case is that a suit was filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 under Section 229 B of U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act before respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 stated that the land in dispute is their bhumidhari land and they are in possession of the land in dispute from the time of their father and their father died and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are waris of their father.

7. It is stated that the petitioner has no touch with the land and with the connivance of officials of revenue department, they have got their name entered in the revenue record, which deserves to be cancelled and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also requested that it would be declared as bhumidhar of the land in dispute.

8. The S.D.M. has heard the parties and it has been found in the compromise that name of the petitioner is entered as widow of Noor Mohammad and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 died and they are real brothers and they are actual share holders of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

9. The compromise shown is fake and the petitioner challenged the so called compromise. The S.D.O. passed an order in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and revision under Section 333 U.P. ZA& LR Act was filed before respondent No.4 by the petitioner that the order of court below is against the provisions of law and the order has been passed without perusal of evidence on record and it also involved question of jurisdiction, hence, the order of court below deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

10. In assailing the impugned orders, submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is barred under Section 49 of CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT . The signature of the petitioner is forged and fabricated and therefore, the compromise is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

11. He submitted that while dismissing the revision, the revisional court directed the parties to file regular suit in regard to controversy involved in the present case. He submitted that the revisional court should have decided the matter on merit in spite of remanding the matter to the regular civil suit.

12. His last submission is that no counter affidavit has been filed till date, therefore, the averment made in the writ petition are correct as it has not been denied by filing counter affidavit.

13. In spite of repeated orders passed in the matter, record of the case could not be produced by the SDM, Patti, Pratapgarh and C.R.O. Pratapgar