JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri H.S.N Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel Advocate for the contesting respondents.
2. On the basis of facts detailed in the writ petition, the disputed Khatas No. 20, 1, 20B etc. were recorded in the name of the petitioner and Awadh Naram. Domri and Bandhu, Khata No. 24 and 99 were recorded in the name of Mst. Dulari, widow of Shiv Pujan, Deep Narain, Jagat Narain and Basu. The respondent No. 4 filed his objection under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of Khata Nos. 20 and 20B claiming 1/4th share on the ground that Mst. Dulari had executed a gift deed for movable and immovable property in the name of Smt. Prabhawati, wife of respondent No. 4. Another objection was filed by the petitioner in respect of Khata Nos. 24 and 99 claiming that there was a registered will dated 9.5.1950 executed in his favour as well as Smt. Prabhawati Devi. He claimed his right as son of Smt. Kesari (first wife of Shiv Pujan) and also on the basis of the aforesaid will. It was further stated that a case No. 30 was registered- Mst. Prabhawati v. Mst. Dulari, in which a compromise was entered into between the parties whereby 1/2 share was given to the petitioner and the opposite party third set and 1/2 share was given to Mst. Prabhawati. The court passed an order dated 31.3.3.1956 in terms of the compromise. It was further contended that the petitioner and opposite party 3nd set continued to be in possession over the land in dispute even after the death of Mst. Prabhawati along with Awadh Narain, husband of Mst. Prabhawati. The claim of the petitioner was on the basis of adverse possession and that the opposite party third set were barred by estoppel and acquiescence. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent No. 4 relying on the gift deed dated 22.8.1955 alleged to have been executed by Mst. Dulari in favour of Mst. Prabhawati. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 15.9.1981 dismissed the objection of the petitioner and directed that his name be expunged from the entire Khatas in dispute. The petitioner and one Abhilakh filed two separate appeals challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.3.1982. The Settlement Officer Consolidation modified the order of the Consolidation Officer to the effect that the name of opposite party No. 4 Awadh Nath be recorded in place of Mst. Dulari. A copy of the order dated 20.3.1982 also forms part of the record. The petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which stood dismissed on 19.2.1983. The courts below declined to place any reliance on the said will for the reason that it was held that Mst. Dulari was alive during the consolidation proceedings. Not only this, she had also appeared and given her statement. Besides, the alleged compromise relied upon by the petitioner said to have been entered into by Ramanand Tiwari on behalf Mst. Prabhawati on 10.5.1956 when she was minor. Thus the claim on the basis of compromise was rightly rejected by the courts below. The right claimed by the petitioner was also on the basis that he was son of the first wife Mst. Kesari of Shiv Pujan. There is no evidence to show that Ramanand Tiwari was authorized to enter into the compromise with the petitioner on behalf of Mst. Prabhawati. He was neither a natural guardian nor any permission was given to him by the competent authority/court, therefore, no right could accrue on the basis of the compromise and could not be acted upon. The petitioner's case rests on the compromise alleged to have entered into during the mutation proceeding and the revisional court has also recorded a categorical finding that no reliance can be placed on the said compromise.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court, Algoo and Ors. v. Deputy Director Consolidation, Jaunpur and Ors. 1979 A.C.J. 299 (Writ Petition No. 4062 of 1971). The Division Bench was of the view that a compromise entered between the parties during mutation proceedings and subsequent finding on the question of possession on the basis of such an admission is within jurisdiction. I have perused the said judgment. The Division Bench permitted only consideration of the said admission made in the compromise for the limited question of permission but it was specifically held that such admission has no relevance in the regular title proceedings. In the instant case, the so called compromise was entered into by a third person and that too on behalf of a minor without any permission from a competent authority. This decision is of no help to the petitioner. The next citation is regarding adverse possession, Ved Ram v. Angan and Ors. 1976, R.D., 8. Secondly the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the will can also not be accepted for the reason that admittedly Mst. Dulari was alive and during the life time of the testator, a will can not be acted upon. All the consolidation courts have rightly recorded a categorical finding declining to accept the petitioner's contention. I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the authorities during consolidation does not call for an interference.
4. Learned Counsel has cited a number of decisions on the question of co-tenancy rights and also that burden of proof looses its significance when both parties lead evidence. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Ors. . The cases relied upon do not help the petitioner. It is not a case of co-tenancy. In fact all these questions rests on the compromise said to have entered on behalf of Mst. Prabhawati. The compromise has not been accepted by the consolidation authorities and I am in agreement it has been y done on valid grounds and based on sound reasonings.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that there was no application of mind and no reason has been given by the consolidation authorities. I do not agree with this submission. On perusal of the three orders, it is very clear that the specific reason has been assigned for not accepting the will. Mst. Dulari herself has appeared and get herself examined, therefore, during her life time the will was a complete waste paper and rightly rejected by the consolidation authorities. The compromise entered into on behalf of Mst. Prabhawati without any permission of the court was also rightly rejected. On perusal of three orders, it is evident that the findings are well reasoned and after consideration of evidence recorded by the court, it does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no reason has been given is without any force. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.