HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 937 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Diwakar Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri S. S. L. Srivastava, Advocate, who has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 4 and 5, which is taken on record. 1. In light of the proposed order, notice to respondent No.6 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioners in the present petition have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 22.6.1994 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Bahraich in appeal No.1444/859 ( Jagdish Prasad and others Vs. Savamee Dayal and others) which was filed by the private respondents and was allowed against which the petitioners had filed a revision under Section 48 before Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been rejected by means of order dated 2.7.2025. 3. The dispute in the present case, according to the petitioners, is with regard to the property of Babu, who according to the petitioner, is a common ancestor of the petitioners as well as private respondents. Before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, it seems, some 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Diwakar Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Savamee Dayal Now Died Thru. Legal Heirs 1/1 Ramswaroop And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shrawasti And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) compromise was entered into between the parties and the land came to be recorded in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners along with others vide order dated 11.1.1986. The opposite parties, thereafter, had filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation and it is in the meanwhile that the entire proceedings and record before the Assistant Consolidation Officer went missing and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer on 11.1.1986. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not accept the contentions of the petitioners that the land was ancestral and initially belonged to the common ancestors of Babu. He relied upon the documents filed before him from where it was evident that the disputed land was obtained through pattas in favour of one Mohan, who is ancestor of the private respondents and the original pattas were filed before the appellate court dated 21.5.1946, 29.4.1943 and 31.5.1941. A categorical finding has been recorded that the pattas were issued in favour of Mohan son of Babu and consequently on the patta land rights cannot be created in favour of the persons on the ground of co-tenancy. Accordingly, the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.1994 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation had filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation before whom, the revision was hopelessly barred by time which was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel who had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners, had filed a forged and fabricated vakalatnama and, in fact, the petitioners had not authorized any person to to file the same on their behalf before the appellate court. It is only before the appellate court that the same pleas were taken which were the similar objections taken before the appellate court. The revisional court has also considered the entire facts and had categorically stated that no document or material could be adduced by the petitioners to indicate that the disputed land was ancestral and the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had any right or interest on the said land. There is no cogent explanation forthcoming on behalf 5. WRIB No. 937 of 2025 2 of the petitioners with regard to the fact that the said land was determined to have been granted on patta the original of which was produced before the appellate court and in absence of any cogent reasoning the case of the petitioners was not likely to succeed. Even in the present writ petition, there is no material or explanation to take a contrary view from the one that has been taken by the appellate court as well as revisional court. From a bare reading of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation it is clear that on the disputed land patta was granted in favour of Mohan who is predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents. Apart from the above, this Court does not find any existence of any compromise having been entered into between the parties nor was the said compromise ever produced before any of the authorities below from which it could be gathered that Mohan or his successors had agreed to hand over a portion of the said land in favour of the petitioners. This Court further notices that the appellate court has also taken into account the fact that any similar plea was taken on behalf of the petitioners with regard to existence of agreement dated 11.1.1986 but this aspect was not accepted and categorically rejected. As such, this Court finds that existence of a compromise has not been accepted even in collateral proceedings vide order dated 19.10.1987 and since then no appeal or revision was preferred by the petitioners assailing the findings recorded in the said case. It is for the aforesaid reasons that this Court does not find any ground for admitting the present petition nor does it find any infirmity with the findings recorded by the authorities below. 6. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 7. October 7, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 937 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench