The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Satya Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plot no.273 of khata no.393 situated in Village- Fulwariya, Tappa-Khuthan, Pargana- Haweli, Tahsil- Sadar, District- Gorakhpur was recorded in the name of Shyamraji wife of Jagesar as bhumidhar with transferable right. After death of aforementioned Shyamraji, name of her daughter Smt. Rampati was recorded on the basis of Pa.Ka.- 11. In the basic year of Consolidation Officer, name of Rampati was recorded over the plot in question. Rampati was married to Sri Ram Raksha Tiwari. Smt. Rampati Devi expired on 13.10.1996, accordingly, name of her only son Narvedeshwar Tripathi was ordered to be recorded in place of Smt. Rampati Devi vide order dated 6.5.1999 in Case No.602, under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). Narvdeshwar Tripathi had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner nos.2 to 5 (Rajesh Kumar and Others) on 30.7.1999. In the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, name of petitioner nos.2 to 5 was ordered to be recorded by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.11.2018 in respect to the plot in question. The order dated 6.5.1999 was set aside in appeal vide order dated 5.7.1999 and matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer, Jhungiya for fresh decision. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9.7.2015 again restored the earlier order dated 6.5.1999. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.6.2001 in Case No.259, under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act rejected the claim of the petitioner nos.2 to 5. Father of respondent nos.4 & 5 (Laxman Singh) filed an objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to the plot in question for recording his name as co-tenure holder of 3/4th share which was registered as Case No.937 before Consolidation Officer. In the aforementioned case, an application for amendment was filed by the father of respondent nos.4 & 5 claiming exclusive right in the plot in dispute. The aforementioned case was dismissed on 28.1.1994, accordingly, father of respondent nos.4 & 5 have filed a restoration application dated 7.5.1997 to recall the order dated 28.1.1994 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 - A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. During pendency of the aforementioned restoration proceeding a compromise was alleged to be take place between Laxman Singh and Rampati Devi, accordingly, Consolidation Officer, Jhugiya, Gorakhpur passed an order dated 6.6.1997 setting aside the earlier order dated 28.1.1994 and decided the proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Petitioner no.1 filed a restoration application dated 8.4.2015 against the order dated 6.6.1997 along with the prayer for condonation of delay. Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur vide order dated 6.6.2015 set aside the order dated 6.6.1997 and restored the proceeding of Case No.237 to its original number for decision on merit. The aforementioned proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 14.7.2016 passed by Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur. Respondent nos.4 & 5, accordingly, filed a restoration application on 15.6.2019 for recalling the orders dated 6.6.2015 and 14.7.2016 along with the prayer for condonation of delay. Consolidation Officer, Deewan Ba