JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for respondents-4 to 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 05.12.2005 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 06.12.2013, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to plot 69 (area 1.40 acre) of village Sonbarsa, pargana Mahadeva, district Gonda, which was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 25 in the name of Agya Ram (father of the petitioners). Lauhar (now represented by respondents-4 to 7) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an objection (registered as case No. 80) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the name of Agya Ram from the land in dispute and recording his name over it. The respondent stated that land in dispute was his ancestral holdings. In previous consolidation operation, it came to be recorded in his name by inheritance. By coming forgery in revenue record, plot 69 (area 1.40 acre) was recorded in the name of Agya Ram, while remaining area of 0.07 acre was recorded in his name. Agya Ram contested the case and stated that land in dispute was in his possession for last 44 years. He filed an objection for recording his name over the land in dispute in previous consolidation, which was dismissed. However, he filed an appeal, in which compromise was filed and the appeal was decided by order dated 13.06.1966, in terms of compromise. Since then his name was continuously recorded in the revenue record. 4. Before Consolidation Officer, the respondent filed CH Form-11, CH Form-41 and CH Form-45 of previous consolidation in which plot 69 area 1.47 acre was recorded in the name of Lauhar, CH Form-41, showing that plot 69 was carved out from old plots 283-Sa, 343-Sa and 344, etc. (total 16 plots, which were recorded in the name of Janki (father of Lauhar) in CH Form-11), khatauni 1366 F to 1368 F, in which plot 69 (area 1.47 acre) was recorded in the name of Lauhar, Pariwar Register and examined himself. Agya Ram filed CH Form-2-A, copy of order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 13.06.1966, khatauni 1372 F to 1391 F and examined himself. Agya Ram filed CH Form-2-A, copy of order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 13.06.1966, khatauni 1372 F to 1391 F and examined himself. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 05.12.2005, held that from CH Form-11, 41 and 45 of previous consolidation and khatauni 1366 F to 1368 F it is proved that in previous consolidation land in dispute was recorded in the name of Lauhar from inheritance and final consolidation record (CH Form-45) was prepared in his name. Thereafter in khatauni 1366 F to 1368 F also his name was recorded over entire area of 1.47 acre of plot 69. However, later on by committing forgery, an area of 1.40 acre of plot 69 was recorded in the name of Agya Ram. On these findings objection of the respondent was allowed and the name of Agya Ram was deleted from the land in dispute and it was recorded in the name of Lauhar. 5. Agya Ram filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 543/171) from aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 15.12.2011 held that earlier case between the parties was contested before Consolidation Officer, which was decided by order dated 20.09.1961. Agya Ram filed Appeal No. 745/635, which was decided in terms of compromise by order dated 13.06.1966. The compromise was signed by Agya Ram and Baij Nath. Entry in revenue record was made on the basis of order dated 13.06.1966 passed in previous consolidation operation. On these findings, he allowed the appeal, set aside order of Consolidation Officer dated 05.12.2005 and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. 6. Kishor Chand and others filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 974/679) from aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the revision and by order dated 06.12.2013, held that both the parties were given full opportunity of evidence before Consolidation Officer and they have also adduced their evidence as such remand for fresh trial by appellate authority was not required. There is no evidence to prove that any case was tried by Consolidation Officer or any order was passed by him, in previous consolidation. The appeal was alleged to be decided in terms of compromise, in which it has been mentioned that order of learned Court below dated 20.06.1961 was accepted to the parties. There is no evidence to prove that any case was tried by Consolidation Officer or any order was passed by him, in previous consolidation. The appeal was alleged to be decided in terms of compromise, in which it has been mentioned that order of learned Court below dated 20.06.1961 was accepted to the parties. In copy of order dated 13.06.1966, order of Consolidation Officer is alleged to have been passed in proceeding under Section 9-A of the Act, although in 1961, the provisions of Section 9-A was not under the Act, which was added in 1963. At the time compromise, Lauhar was minor, Baij Nath, his alleged guardian entered into compromise without permission of competent authority as such he had no right to enter into compromise as held by Supreme Court in Madhegowda vs. Ankegowda, AIR 2002 SC 215 and the order is void. From the evidence on record, it was proved that Lauhar was owner of the land in dispute and name of Agya Ram was recorded by committing forgery. On these findings, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of appellate authority dated 15.12.2011 and affirmed order of Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Agya Ram had been in possession of the land in dispute for last 44 years. He filed an objection i.e. Case No. 371 for recording his name over the land in dispute in previous consolidation, on the basis of his adverse possession, which was dismissed. Then, he filed an appeal, in which compromise was filed and the appeal was decided by order dated 13.06.1966, in terms of compromise. On the basis of order passed by appellate court, name of Agya Ram was incorporated in khatauni 1371 F. Record of Case No. 371 Agya Ram Vs. Lauhar decided on 20.09.1961 was weeded out on 20.09.1999. Agya Ram filed extract of "TO" register, in which registration of Appeal No. 745/635, which was decided in terms of compromise by order dated 13.06.1966, was mentioned. Certified copies of memorandum of appeal, compromise and order passed in it were filed. There was no basis for respondents-1 and 2 to hold that the name of Agya Ram was recorded by committing forgery. Certified copies of memorandum of appeal, compromise and order passed in it were filed. There was no basis for respondents-1 and 2 to hold that the name of Agya Ram was recorded by committing forgery. Wrong section of the case was mentioned in memorandum of appeal, due bonafide mistake of the counsel, as the appeal was filed on 15.12.1965 and at that time Section-9-A was inserted in the Act. Only for this reason, it cannot be ignored. The name of Agya Ram was continuously recorded in revenue record since 1371 F to 1391 F, without any objection to Lauhar. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The petitioners have filed copy of alleged memorandum of appeal, along with Supplementary Affidavit, which shows that the appeal was filed from order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.09.1961 passed in Case No. 371, under Section 9-A of the Act, on 15.12.1965. In the appeal, compromise was allegedly filed on 13.06.1966 and the appeal was decided on the same day, in terms of compromise. In the compromise, it has been mentioned that the parties have accepted order of Court below passed in Case No. 371, under Section 9-A of the Act, decided on 20.09.1961, in favour of the respondent. In prayer of compromise, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed and compromise be made part of order. By the order dated 13.06.1966, the appeal was dismissed in terms of compromise. In basic consolidation record, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Janki, father of Lauhar as proved from CH Form-11 and also admitted. It is alleged that Agya Ram filed an objection for recording his name over the land in dispute on the basis of possession, which was dismissed by order dated 20.09.1961. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.09.1961 was against Agya Ram due to which he was required to file an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed in terms of compromise. After dismissal of objection and appeal both, there was no occasion for recording the name of Agya Ram. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.09.1961 was against Agya Ram due to which he was required to file an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed in terms of compromise. After dismissal of objection and appeal both, there was no occasion for recording the name of Agya Ram. Thus even if registration of case before Consolidation Officer or appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation and its dismissal at both the stages are proved, then also there was no basis to record the name of Agya Ram in revenue record as his objection and appeal both were dismissed. Findings of respondents-1 and 2 that the name of Agya Ram came to be recorded by making forgery do not suffer from any illegality. 9. Findings of the courts below that Section 9-A was added in the Act, for the first time in 1963 as such papers produced by the petitioners relating to his case and appeal were fabricated papers also do not suffer from any illegality. Earlier title dispute were not decided by Consolidation Officer but under the provisions of the Act, as it was then it was referred to Civil Court. The Courts below further recorded findings that the petitioner could not prove his possession over the land in dispute. Findings of facts in these respect cannot be interfered by this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.