RAJA RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), objections were filed. IN the basic year the name of respondent no 3 was recorded in revenue records and the petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act for expansion of that entry as the petitioner has matured his title over the land in dispute.

(2.) THE aforesaid objection was contested by respondent no. 3, but it appears that a compromise was filed and on that basis the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 22-1-87 (Annexure-3 to the petition). Against that order respondent no 3 filed an appeal which was allowed by order dated 5-6-92 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, and the compromise was set aside and basic year entry was maintained (vide Annexure-4 to the petition'. Against that order the petitioner preferred revision which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10-8-92 (Anne- xure-6 to the petition), holding that the compromise has correctly been set aside and the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was correct. To quash these orders by issuing a writ of Certiorari, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent no. 3, on the other hand, urged that even after setting aside the compromise by order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation the basic year entry has correctly been maintained and there was no justification to permit the parties to lead evidence or to decide the matter on merits.