JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that the order dated 9-7-74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the order dated 12-10-73 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 18-4-73 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings u/s 9-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short the Act), may be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. 2. The Petitioner is a member of the Gaon Sabha of village Panchauha, district Gorakhpur. He filed objection in proceedings u/s 9-A(2) of the Act in respect of plot No. 274 and other plots. These plots along with other plots were recorded as Khalihan, abadi, banjar and pokhari etc. as stated in the second paragraph of the order of the Consolidation Officer (Annexure-1 to the petition), that the land in dispute has vested in the Goan Sabha and Respondent No. 2 was incorrectly asserting his rights claiming sirdari and bhumidhari rights and that he was not in possession, even though incorrectly, the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has been decided in his favour and that the order in proceedings under Rule 115-D of the UP ZA & LR Rules were illegal. 3. Respondent No. 4 contested the claim of Petitioner claiming sirdari and bhumidhari rights over plot No. 247 and 442/1 respectively and claimed some other plots as his abadi. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 18-4-72 rejected the claim of Petitioner and directed plot No. 441 area 84 to be recorded as bhumidhari and plot No. 247/1 was ordered to be recorded as sirdari of Shyam Narain, Respondent No. 4. The claim of the Gaon Sabha was rejected. Against that an appeal was filed which was rejected by order dated 12-10-73. The revision filed by the Petitioner also met the same fate. By the present petition these orders are sought to be quashed. 4. The claim of the Gaon Sabha was rejected. Against that an appeal was filed which was rejected by order dated 12-10-73. The revision filed by the Petitioner also met the same fate. By the present petition these orders are sought to be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the consolidation authorities have committed error in holding that the Petitioner as a member of the Gaon Sabha shall have no right to file objection or contest the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and that the compromise in the earlier suit filed by Shyam Narain, Respondent No. 4 u/s 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act against the Gaon Sabha was not accepted by the Assistant Collector, Ist Class while dismissing the suit, but Deputy Director of Consolidation incorrectly held that the said compromise was accepted. Hence incorrect observation has been made in the judgment, that the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not based on any evidence led by the parties, including oral evidence and that Respondent No. 4 cannot get any right on the basis of adverse possession. Apart from that even assuming that the right could be conferred on Respondent No. 4 by adverse possession, the starting point of limitation must have been stated and what was the period of limitation must have also been stated in the judgments of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. Thus Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 committed error on the face of record. 5. Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 vehemently refuted the submissions urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and argued all the points which could be advanced in support of the impugned order. He urged that the compromise in any case would operate as an admission. 6. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in holding that the Petitioner cannot file objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Similarly the Settlement Officer Consolidation erred in holding that the Petitioner has no right to file objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in holding that the Petitioner cannot file objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Similarly the Settlement Officer Consolidation erred in holding that the Petitioner has no right to file objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The exact words of the judgment are quoted below: Dhara 229B me pratipakshi ne ek mukadma dayar kiya, jisme gram samaj ne sulahnama prastut kiya, jisme parganadhikari ne 28-12-68 ko kuch sharton ke aadhar par sulanama ko sweekar kar liya. Gram Samaj ne ek prastav 6-10-68 ko paarit kiya aur us aadhar par D.G.C. ne apni report dee jis par sulahnama sweekar huwa. Gram Samaj dwara paarit prastaav ke aadhar par pradhan ne sulahnama dakhil kiya jise parganadhikari ne sweekar kiya. 7. Ex abundanti cautela, the statutory provision of Section 11-C of the Act is set out below: In the course of hearing of an objection u/s 9-A or an appeal u/s 11, or in proceedings u/s 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority. 8. The cardinal rule of interpretation is that the interpretation must be textual and contextual. In view of maxim "EX VISCERIBUS ACTUS" which means that every part of a statute should be construed with reference to context. In the context other provisions of the Act may be read together. Section 11--C may be read along with Sections 9, 9-A and 11 of the Act. Section 9 provides issuance of extracts from the revised record and statements and publication of records mentioned u/s 8 and 8-A and the issuance of notices for inviting objections. Section 9-A(1) enacts the procedure for disposal of cases by Assistant Consolidation Officer relating to claims to level and partition of joint holdings. Section 9-A(2) provides that the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in cases not disposed of u/s 9-A(1), shrill refer them to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. Section 9-A(1) enacts the procedure for disposal of cases by Assistant Consolidation Officer relating to claims to level and partition of joint holdings. Section 9-A(2) provides that the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in cases not disposed of u/s 9-A(1), shrill refer them to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. Section 11-A enacts the provisions of constructive res judicata, that no questions in respect of claims to land, whether on the objections of private individual or by the Gaon Sabha or State of U.P. which might and ought to have been raised earlier u/s 9, but were not raised or heard at any subsequent stages. Section 11-C has been brought on the statute book by the U.P. Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974 to protect the interest of State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha even though no objection has been filed by it at the earlier proper stage u/s 9 or 9-A. Section 11-C is a proviso to Section 11-A. If during the course of objection, appeal or revision, it transpires that the land appears to have vested in the Gaon Sabha or the State the Court shall direct it to vest in Gaon Sabha even if no objection was filed by Gaon Sabha or state at the proper stage. See Babu Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1985 RD 236 (HC) ; Ram Sewak v. D.D.C. 1986 ALJ 182; State of U.P. v. Vinita 1983 ALJ 317 and Amir Husain and Others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1977) AWC 1. 9. In other words, Section 11-C of the Act is couched in a language having very wide sweep and it is to the effect that even though no objection has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha at the proper stage, it is for the consolidation authorities to decide as to whether the right of the Gaon Sabha is involved even if no objection was filed by it and the land shall be directed to vest in Gaon Sabha. By implication the 'mens' or sententia legis, appears to be that any other person can file objection to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha, provided the same is not collusive or fraudulent or to defeat its interest. 10. By implication the 'mens' or sententia legis, appears to be that any other person can file objection to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha, provided the same is not collusive or fraudulent or to defeat its interest. 10. The certified copy of the order dated 9-10-69 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class in Case No. 978 u/s 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act (the judgment referred by the D.D.C and extracted above) indicates about the validity of compromise entered into on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in respect of the land in suit. That compromise was rejected by Asstt. Collector Ist Class. The exact words are quoted below: Therefore the compromise is also invalid for the reasons of the incompetence of the parties. In any case the compromise is not binding against the Defendant Palakdhari who has contested the claim of the Plaintiff. As already discussed above, the claim of the Plaintiff of his having acquired sirdari rights over the land in suit on any of the grounds mentioned in the plaint cannot be allowed. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon the compromise (the relevant portion extracted above), under the impression as if the same was accepted by the Assistant Collector Ist Class in the aforesaid case. 12. From the aforesaid portion of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation extracted above, it appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not read the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Class where by the compromise was rejected, rather under the misapprehension of fact and just on surmises and conjecture he has decided the revision treating the compromise as if accepted valid by the Assistant Collector Ist Class. In fact, that compromise was rejected by the Assistant Collector Ist Class in Suit No. 978 u/s 229-B and that suit also abated. Under law a compromise, in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC in order to be acceptable, must be valid and lawful, particularly on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of record in deciding the revision just on surmises and conjecture and by misreading the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Class dated 9-10-69 (the certified copy of the order is on the record). 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of record in deciding the revision just on surmises and conjecture and by misreading the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Class dated 9-10-69 (the certified copy of the order is on the record). 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also did not consider evidence on record and he did not record any finding as to whether the settlement was proposed by the Ex-Zamindar in favour of Respondent No. 4 and even though there was no period of limitation against the land of the Gaon Sabha. There was no limitation if the suit was filed for maturing title by adverse possession against the land of Gaon Sabha. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the date from which the adverse possession of Respondent No. 4 commenced, and what was the period of limitation, just by making a reference to the order in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 115-D, held that as Respondent No. 4 was in possession over the plots in dispute, he was Sirdar/Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. I am of the view that even if Respondent No. 4 remains in possession that itself would not create any right in his favour-against the interest and title of Gaon Sabha. The proceedings under Rule 115-D and u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were summary in nature where as the consolidation authorities are deciding regular proceedings on merits The correct period of limitation applicable in such matters so as to mature rights against the interest of the Gaon Sabha has been decided by me in Shish Ram v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1987 AWC 69 . The material evidence on record including oral evidence has also not been considered nor discussed. I am, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The Petitioner is entitled to a writ of Certiorari. 14. In view of the premises aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21-7-74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and the matter is remanded back to him for disposal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. As the matter has dragged on for too long, what is required is expedition. The impugned order dated 21-7-74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and the matter is remanded back to him for disposal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. As the matter has dragged on for too long, what is required is expedition. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the case by 28-3-1992. There shall be no order as to costs.