JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Rakesh Singh for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh for the caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 22.1.2004 and Deputy director of Consolidation dated 17.6.2016. It is alleged that property in dispute belonging to one Devdhari. After the death of Devdhari it was inherited by his widow Smt. Bhagirathia. During the life time Smt. Bhagirathia, by a fictitious compromise the name of Smt. Kunti, one of the daughters of Smt. Bhagirathia was recorded by order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.1.1984. On coming to know about the order dated 24.1.1984 Smt. Bhagirathia filed an appeal against the aforesaid order along with a delay condonation application. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the impugned order condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that during the life time of Smt. Bhagirathia the name of Smt. Kunti, who was daughter of Devdhari and Bagirathia could not be recorded over the land in dispute. Otherwise also there were three daughters, namely, Kunti, Kanti and Munni. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order of consolidation officer dated 24.1.1984 was set aside and it has been held that Ram Autar, who is husband of Smt. Kunti executed the sale deed as such sale deed dated 23.5.2003 executed in favour of the petitioner is void. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 17.6.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The fact that Smt. Bhagirathia was alive on the date of order of Consolidation officer dated 24.1.1984 is not disputed. The only argument of the counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Bhagirathia entered into a compromise and the name of her daughter was recorded over the land in dispute. Later on name of Ram Autar who was husband of Smt. Kunti was recorded over it. Thereafter Ram Autar executed a sale deed dated 23.5.2003 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is a bona fide transferee without notice as name of Ram Autar was recorded in the revenue record his right is liable to be protected. I have considered this argument of the petitioner also. Thereafter Ram Autar executed a sale deed dated 23.5.2003 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is a bona fide transferee without notice as name of Ram Autar was recorded in the revenue record his right is liable to be protected. I have considered this argument of the petitioner also. The order of mutation of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Smt. Bhagirathia herself claiming that compromise was a forged document Her version was accepted by the consolidation authorities. Therefore, this Court has no reason to believe that compromise was genuine. There has been three daughter of Smt. Bhagirathia and there was no reason that she would enter into compromise for recording the name of one daughter only. In any case it was an illegal transfer which cannot be survive under law. So far as the argument that the petitioner is a bona fide transferee without notice is concerned, the sale deed was executed during pendency of the appeal. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said that he is bona fide transferee. The petitioner may get the sale consideration returned from his transferor. But no relief or right over the land in dispute can be given to the petitioner on the basis of sale deed executed by Ram Autar, who has no title over it. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.