JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Dharam Pal original petitioner and Yashpal his real brother inherited some agricultural land from their father Bharte. Thereafter Yashpal died and his share in the said agricultural land was inherited by his widow Smt. Anarkali whose name was recorded in the revenue record after her husband's death alongwith Dharampal, Thereafter Smt. Anankali filed a suit for partition against Dharampal in the year 1966 which was decreed and final decree was prepared on 8.3.1967 in which the entire agricultural land of Anarkali and Dharampal was devided into two lots (quras) lot A and lot B. Lot-A was given to Smt. Anarkali and Lot-B to Dharampal. Anarkali executed a gift deed and a sale deed of a portion of land of Lot -A on 7.7.1967 in favour of her brother Brahmpal. Against the final decree dated 8,3.1967 appeal was filed by Dharampal which was dismissed. Thereafter Second Appeal was filed before Board of Revenue. Meanwhile Anarkali had got the final decree executed and obtained possession over the land of Lot-A and Dharampal obtained possession of Lot-B. In the Second appeal before Board of Revenue parties agreed to exchange their lots. Board of Revenue allowed the appeal on the basis of compromise on 10.7.1970 and file was sent back to the trial court for preparation of final decree afresh.
2. It appears that the Gift deed and Sale deed of 7.7.1967 were challenged by Gaon Sabha under Section 163 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act.
3. Thereafter Smt. Anarkali in pursuance of order of Board of Revenue exchanging the lots, filed application for restitution under Section 144 C.P.C. In the said application she claimed that she should be given possession over the land of Lot-B in pursuance of judgment and decree passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.7.1970. Application was dismissed but appeal filed against the said order was allowed on 31.7.1975. The Additional Commissioner while allowing the appeal held that over the land of Lot-A Dharampal had already got possession on 26.5.1975 hence he had no right to resist delivery of possession over the land of Lot-B to Anarkali. Second Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by Board of Revenue on 19.4.1976 which was challenged through writ petition No. 3370 of 1976 by Dharampal (original petitioner of this writ petition also). The said writ petition was decided by this Court on 30.11.1979, a copy of the said judgment is Annexure-1 to this writ petition. In the said writ petition all the facts which I have stated above are mentioned. Writ petition was dismissed. However, during pendency of writ petition Anarkali had died. On behalf of Dharampal petitioner therein it was argued that share of Anarkali would be inherited by the petitioner. That question was left.
4. Thereafter proceedings started before Consolidation courts and the matter was finally decided by D.D.C., Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 30.12.1988 passed in revision Nos. 2123, 2134 and 2168. The said judgment is under challenge through this writ petition.
5. It has been stated in para-6 of this writ petition that Smt. Anarkali executed a gift deed in favour of her brother Brahmpal on 1.12.1971 and a sale deed on 15.9.1971 in favour of hear other three brothers whose sons are respondents 5, 6 and 7 in this writ petition. It has further been stated in the said para that these two deeds of 1971 were in respect of land of Lot 'B'. It is very strange that nothing was stated in respect of these two deeds of 1971 in the earlier writ petition decided through Annexure-1.
6. Smt. Anarkali died in the year 1977.
7. Probably Smt. Anarkali executed gift deed and sale deed in favour of her brothers in respect of land included in Lot 'B' due to the reason that earlier sale deed and gift deed executed by her in favour of her brothers was in respect of land included in Lot-A which at that time belonged to her but subsequently through judgment and decree passed by the Board of Revenue on the basis of compromise lots had been exchanged and she had got Lot-B and Lot-A had been given to Dharampal. By the impugned order Deputy Director of Consolidation held the gift deed dated 1.12.1971 and sale deed dated 15.9.1971 to be valid.
8. Smt. Anarkali remained alive for about six years after execution of the said deeds. She never raised any objection against the said deeds executed by her. Through compromise exchange of lots had taken place and Lot 'B' had been given to Anarkali. Dharampal could not therefore object to the right of Anarkali to deal with the land of Lot-B in whatever manner she desired. She executed sale deed and gift deed of the land of Lot 'B' in favour of her brothers. Petitioner cannot challenge that. Even otherwise I do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
9. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.