JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Awadhesh Narayan Srivastava for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Mishra for the caveator. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1995, 5.7.2016 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.8.2016 passed in the title proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The dispute between the parties was in respect of land recorded in basic consolidation year khata No. 244 and 245 of village Naipura Kalan, pargana Dehat Amanat, tehsil and distt. Varanasi. In basic consolidation records name of all the co-sharers were recorded. It is alleged that a joint objection was filed by the co-sharers disclosing their shares in various khatas and claiming for partition of their shares. The Assistant Consolidation Officer forwarded the objection by order dated 11.1.1994 to Consolidation Officer for decision on merit. The Consolidation Officer issued notices to the parties on 4.2.1992 for their appearance on 9.2.1992. Thereafter a written compromise was filed by the parties with signatures/thumb impressions of all the parties and signatures/thumb impressions were identified by their respective counsels on 23.6.1995. The compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer on 23.6.1995 and it was verified by the Consolidation Officer on that very day and he decided the case in terms of compromise of the parties by his order dated 27.12.1995. In pursuance of the order of Consolidation Officer, separate chaks were carved out to the parties. 4. Lalji Singh, father of the petitioners was also chak No. 419. Although it is admitted to the petitioners that Lalji Singh was surviving up to 1999 but he did not challenge the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1995 during his life time. After death of Lalji Singh, names of the petitioners were also mutated in the year 2000. Thereafter the petitioners executed various sale deeds of the land of their chaks. The petitioners filed an application for recalling the order dated 27.12.1995 along with delay condonation application on 16.4.2013. It has been stated in the recall application that father of the petitioners was illiterate villager. He was illegally not given any share in plot No. 287 and 288 of khata No. 244 and plot No. 493/1 of khata No. 245. When the children of the petitioners asked the petitioners that why they were not given any share in the aforesaid plots ? He was illegally not given any share in plot No. 287 and 288 of khata No. 244 and plot No. 493/1 of khata No. 245. When the children of the petitioners asked the petitioners that why they were not given any share in the aforesaid plots ? Then on 15.4.2013 inquiry was made in the court and it was found that the Consolidation Officer has decided the case on the basis of compromise dated 27.12.1995. Lalji Singh, father of the petitioners, has neither any notice of the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer nor he ever engaged any counsel and his thumb impressions affixed on the compromise were fabricated. Lalji Singh has not executed any sale deed of plot No. 493/1. Lalji Singh did not get any other land in lieu of plot nos 287 and 288 and by committing fraud in the court, the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1995 has been procured. 5. The recall application was contested by the respondents and they have stated that since before the Consolidation Officer there was family dispute as such the family members have entered into compromise including Lalji Singh also. Lalji Singh engaged a counsel who has identified his thumb impressions on the compromise. The compromise was also verified by the Consolidation Officer and no forgery has been committed. In lieu of plot nos. 287 and 288 and 493/1 Lalji Singh had already been given land in plot nos. 187 and 188 as in plot nos. 287 and 288 houses of Ambika, Ram Nath and Ram Singh were constructed due to family partition between the parties. The recall application was heard by the Consolidation Officer who by the order dated 5.7.2016 found that both the compromises bear the thumb impressions of Lalji Singh which were also identified by his counsel Sri Santosh Kumar Singh. The compromise was verified by the Consolidation Officer on 23.6.1995. Lalji Singh did not challenge the compromise during his life time. None of the other co-sharers have challenged the compromise. The recall application has been filed by the sons of Lalji Singh after delay of about 18 years and they are not entitled for condonation of delay. On this finding he dismissed the recall application. The petitioners challenged the order in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation. None of the other co-sharers have challenged the compromise. The recall application has been filed by the sons of Lalji Singh after delay of about 18 years and they are not entitled for condonation of delay. On this finding he dismissed the recall application. The petitioners challenged the order in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 20.8.2016 upheld the finding of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that two revisions were required to be filed, one is against the order dated 27.12.1995 and the other is against the order dated 5.7.2016, is incorrect inasmuch as both these orders were passed in one and same case and it could be challenged in single revision under Section 48 of the Act. 7. A perusal of the notices issued by the Consolidation Officer shows that notices were issued on 4.2.1994 fixing 9.2.1994. Although notices were received by Shailendra Singh, who is son of Rama Shankar. The Process Server had noted that notices were affixed on the door but no signature of the witnesses have been obtained on the report by Process Server relating to affixation of notice. Lalji Singh had neither any notice of the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer nor he ever appeared or engaged any counsel. His thumb impressions on the compromise have been fabricated by the other co-shares. Lalji Singh was illiterate person and he could never check that whether the valuation of plot No. 287 and 288 and 493 was allotted in his chak or not. It is only when the petitioners made inquiry in the year 2013 then they could know about the fact that these plots were not allotted in their chaks. Although, Lalji Singh has share in these plots also. The petitioners are also illiterate as such only on the basis of previous sale deeds executed by the petitioners no inference can be drawn that the petitioners had knowledge of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1995 from very beginning. The Consolidation Officer has illegally rejected the recall application on the ground of limitation. The petitioners are also illiterate as such only on the basis of previous sale deeds executed by the petitioners no inference can be drawn that the petitioners had knowledge of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1995 from very beginning. The Consolidation Officer has illegally rejected the recall application on the ground of limitation. He submits that in the case of fraud the limitation runs from the date of knowledge and as and when it was brought to the notice of the court then it was liable to be condoned but the recall/restoration application filed by the petitioners has been illegally dismissed. He relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 AIR (SC) page 853 (DB) and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran 1996 AIR (SC) page 686 (DB) in which it has been held that the order obtained by committing fraud is liable to be set aside when the matter is brought to the notice of the court. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the records. 9. Although it is denied that Lalji Singh had neither any notice of the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer nor he appeared and filed vakalatnama before the Consolidation Officer. But a perusal of the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition) shows that this objection also contains thumb impressions of Lalji Singh. Filing of the objection under Section 9 of the Act has not been denied by the petitioners. This objection was forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by his report dated 11.1.1994. Although it is alleged that notices were issued on 4.2.1994 fixing 9.2.1994 and Process Server submitted his report dated 8.2.1994 showing that notices were served upon Shailendra Singh and affixed on the door of noticee but the compromise was filed before the Consolidation Officer on 23.6.1995. The Consolidation Officer has also verified the compromise dated 23.6.1995 and on its basis the order was passed on 27.12.1995. If Lalji Singh has filed objection under Section 9 of the Act then it is not expected that he would not make any inquiry regarding the progress of his objection. The Consolidation Officer has also verified the compromise dated 23.6.1995 and on its basis the order was passed on 27.12.1995. If Lalji Singh has filed objection under Section 9 of the Act then it is not expected that he would not make any inquiry regarding the progress of his objection. Admittedly Lalji Singh was surviving up to 1999 and for a period of four years, he never challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1995 and any explanation in this respect has not been given by the petitioners. Only allegation that Lalji Singh as well as the petitioners were illiterate persons as such they could never know as to what land has been allotted in their chak. This allegation is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as a separate chak was carved out to Lalji Singh i.e. chak No. 419. The petitioners' names were also mutated after death of Lalji Singh in the year 2000. Immediately after mutation of the names, the petitioners have also executed various sale deeds of the land in dispute. At least two sale deeds is of the year 2006. A perusal of CH form 23 further shows that chak of Lalji Singh was varied by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and also by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. All these proceedings were litigated by Lalji Singh and thereafter the petitioners. Thus it cannot be presumed that Lalji Singh had no knowledge of the compromise as well as the order dated 27.12.1995. The recall application was filed on 17.4.2013. The Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have not committed any illegality in not condoning the delay in filing the recall application. 10. The compromise contains the thumb impressions of Lalji Singh which was identified by his counsel Sri Santosh Kumar Singh. The compromise was verified by the Consolidation Officer and before the Consolidation Officer also thumb impressions of Lalji Singh and signatures of the other parties were taken and verification was recorded by the Consolidation Officer. In such circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that any forgery has been committed. Particularly no other co-sharers have ever denied of filing of the compromise. Although ten other persons have signed the compromise. There is nothing on record also to show that forgery has been committed on Lalji Singh. In such circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that any forgery has been committed. Particularly no other co-sharers have ever denied of filing of the compromise. Although ten other persons have signed the compromise. There is nothing on record also to show that forgery has been committed on Lalji Singh. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners has no application in this case. 11. In the objection it has been mentioned that Lalji Sigh was given land in plot No. 187 and 188 in lieu of his share in plot No. 287 and 288 over which houses of Ambika, Ram Nath and Rama Shankar were existed. A perusal of CH Form 2 A shows that houses were constructed on plot No. 287 (area 0.081 hectare) and plot No. 288 (area 0.089 hectare). Thus existence of houses has not been denied. The recital of the objection that in lieu of it, Lalji Singh was given land on plot nos. 187 and 188. The petitioners have not filed a copy of CH Form 23 of Lalji Singh showing his original holding. Thus he could not rebut the recital in the objection that in lieu of his share in plot nos. 287 and 288, he was given land in plot nos. 187 and 188. Similarly it has been mentioned that Lalji Singh had no share in plot No. 493/1. There is no objection in respect of remaining plots in the compromise. Thus the compromise has not been challenged in its totality but it was challenged only in respect of plot No. 287, 288 and 493/3. 12. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.