V.N. Khare and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
This appeal arises out of the consolidation operation undertaken under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondents filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Chakki, Malwan, District Fatehpur claiming co-tenancy right in disputed khata. It appears from the record that the appellants, who earlier were claiming exclusive tenancy rights in the disputed khatas entered into a compromise with the respondents accepting them as co-tenure-holder to the extent of half share in the disputed khata. The said compromise was signed by the parties as well as by the two members of the Management Committee of Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, in view of the said compromise, passed an order dated 11-5-1974.
The deceased Appellant 1, who is now represented by his legal heirs and other appellants, preferred a belated appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Along with the appeal, the appellants also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it was stated that since the appellants were not parties to the compromise, they had no knowledge of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and, as soon as they came to know about the order, they preferred an appeal and, therefore, the delay caused in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) accepted the explanation given by the appellants for not filing within the time and, as such, condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was of the view that since the compromise itself has been challenged by the appellants, therefore, there is a dispute between the parties. In that view of the matter, he set aside the order dated 11-5-1974 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the respective objections on merits. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision petition under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it was contended by the respondents that since the appellants were parties to the compromise memo and, therefore, they had knowledge of the order dated 11-5-1974, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) committed an error in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, was of the view that since the appellants or their counsel have not pointed out any suspicious circumstances as to doubt the genuineness of the compromise memo, the appellants were parties to the compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and once they were parties to the compromise memo, the explanation given by them for condoning the delay could not have been accepted. In that view of the matter, the revision petition was allowed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was set aside. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that from the very inception the appellants have challenged the compromise memo on the ground that it did not bear their signatures and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation on his own initiative ought to have given an opportunity to them to get their purported signatures on the compromise memo examined by a handwriting expert. We do not find any merit in the contention. It was for the appellants to have requested the Deputy Director of Consolidation for getting their signatures examined by a handwriting expert. No such prayer was made either by the appellants or by their counsel to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Further, the appellants failed to point out any infirmity in the compromise memo. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after looking into the original compromise memo found that there was nothing to doubt the genuineness of the compromise. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed by the High Court, is a finding of fact and cannot be assailed in this appeal.
The appeal, accordingly fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.