RAJ KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These are two connected writ petitions which arises out of the same dispute and against common orders as passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh/respondent No. 1. For the purpose of convenience, Writ Petition No. 34147 of 1993 is being taken up as leading case.

(2.) THE facts in brief, can be summarised for the purposes of disposal of these two writ petitions. THE father of respondent No. 3 (Ashok Kumar) namely Raj Narain filed objection under Section 9A (2) of U. P. C. H. Act claiming himself to be co-tenant with Yogendra Narain (respondent No. 4). THE Consolidation Officer rejected his objection but on appeal, Raj Narain was declared to be co-tenant by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 31.1.1972 which was confirmed in the revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 17.11.1972. Against the aforesaid judgments, the respondent No. 4 Yogendra Narain filed writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 1466 of 1973. It appears that some compromise was filed between the petitioner and the respondents in that petition on the basis of which, it was prayed that the writ petition be decided in terms of compromise. THEre were various clauses in the compromise. In the affidavit filed in support of the compromise, it was stated that the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer be restored, the objection of respondents be dismissed. Clause 2 (1) as mentioned in the affidavit referred above is to be quoted herewith : "That the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer be restored. THE objection of the respondent be dismissed."

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, in both writ petitions, order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.9.1993 and in Writ Petition No. 34460 of 1993, order dated 2.11.1993 has been prayed to be quashed.