JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated July 30, 1974 the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the learned December 6, 1972 be impugned order, the learned trial court set aside the compromise decree dated November 8, 1971 in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that there was concealment of the fact of consolidation of holdings taken place in the village and the decree amounted to fragmentation of a holding hit by Section 168-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, Telhu and have also perused the record. None for the opposite party has appeared. 3. In the trial court Krishna Murari filed a suit for declaration against Radhey Shyam and others and they later entered into a compromise by which Krishna Murari and Rama Kant got 1.00 acre, Telhu got 0.52 acre and Radhey Shyam got 0.30 acre cut of total area 1.82 acres. No doubt, this was a division of holding in disguise. Devendra and Haldhar who had interest in the land, were not made parties in the suit under Section 229-B but were parties in an earlier civil suit before consolidation of holdings, in that suit this plot was given to the applicants but later the civil suit abated, then Radhey Shyam executed an unregistered sale-deed in favour of Devendra and Haldhar and, lastly, the parties entered into the aforesaid compromise. The objectors pleaded that the restoration application dated January 28, 1972 was time-barred, there was no earlier agreement or sale in favour of Haldhar, who was also not a party to the suit. The trial court, however, based his finding only on violation of Section 168-A due to concealment of fact by the parties to the compromise. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the applicants (Haldhar) had no locus standi and a compromise decree could not be set aside on the application of a person who is no party to the suit. He further held that there was no proof of fraud which was necessary for invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the C.P.C., that it was only an adjustment among the co-tenure-holders, not amounting to transfer within the meaning of Section 168-A. 4. He further held that there was no proof of fraud which was necessary for invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the C.P.C., that it was only an adjustment among the co-tenure-holders, not amounting to transfer within the meaning of Section 168-A. 4. I find great difficulty in reconciling with the views of the learned Additional Commissioner, He perhaps thought of fraud only in terms of fraud about the interest of parties. When the parties conceal facts, making the court believe that there was no violation of Section 168-A, it is clearly a fraud on the court, and also on the state who has framed the law. As observed earlier, this suit for declaration turned out to be a division of holding in the garb of a compromise. It was not a private division but a court decree separating the areas for different co-sharers of a plo of 1.82 acres. This is no adjustment but a division, clear and simple, hit by Section 168-A(1), and also by Section 178(1) if proper sections of law were applied. This division by compromise was also void under Section 168-A (2) and the decree had little sanctity to withstand, challenges against it. 5. I, therefore, agree with the learned trial court, who was a bit lenient in holding it just a concealment of fact resulting in breach of Section 168-A. Since by concealment of earlier consolidation proceedings, illegality of fragmentation was committed to benefit the two parties to the suit, it must be deemed a fraud on the court and the learned trial court was perfectly within his jurisdiction to set aside this fraudulent decree. In the circumstances, question of locus standi of the applicants or bar of limitation do not arise. 6. Lastly, to allay the fears of the first appellate count about the lawful decrees being assailed on such grounds, the position of the instant case must be distinguished from the findings having bona fide errors of law or fact, becoming final by process of law, because it was not a decree based on the finding of a court but a compromise-based decree resulting in violation of provisions of law. There is distinct difference between an error of law and violation of law. 7. Accordingly, the revision application is found without force and is rejected along with the reference.