JUDGMENT : SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners Jag Ram and Ram Deo S/o Raj Dei W/o Mehi Lal, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.05.2002 in Revision Nos. 318, Bechai and Others vs. Jag Ram and Others and in Revision No. 319, Bechai and Others vs. Jag Ram and Others. By the order impugned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order dated 09.02.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Gonda in Appeal Nos. 621 and 983 of 1973. 2. It has been submitted by Sri. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the dispute relates to Khata No. 93 in Village Sohans, Pargana Tehsil and District Gonda ad-measuring 13.23 acres. It has been submitted that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Jagannath, maternal grand father of the petitioners in 1345 Fasli i.e. in the year 1938 in Category-III in the Third Settlement. After the death of Jagannath, Mst. Bachauna, the widow of Jagannath was recorded in the Khatauni as Sirdar of the land in dispute in 1360 Fasli i.e. in the year 1953. Thereafter, the names of Nageshwar, Rameshwar, Ram Samujh and Sunder, all sons of Ganesh, were recorded along with the name of Mst. Bachauna in the Khatauni of 1369 to 1371 Fasli. 3. After 1372 Fasli the name of Smt. Bahauna was surreptitiously removed and only the names of the sons of Ganesh came to be recorded. This wrong entry continued in the Basic Year Khatauni and when consolidation operations began in the village concerned, Smt. Rajdei, the daughter of Smt. Bachauna and the mother of the petitioners filed an objection under Section 9A-2 before the Consolidation Officer. 4. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties, on the basis of compromise decree passed by the Munsif, Gonda dated 07.01.1954 by an order dated 22.11.1973 directed the land in dispute to be recorded in the name of Raj Dei as heir of Jagannath and Bachauna, as well as Ram Samujh and others the four sons of Ganesh the brother of Jagannath, to be divided equally Per Stirpes. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and claiming the whole of Gata No. 93, the predecessor of respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed Appeal No. 621 against Raj Dei. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and claiming the whole of Gata No. 93, the predecessor of respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed Appeal No. 621 against Raj Dei. The Appeal No. 983 was also filed by Smt. Raj Dei aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) clubbed both the Appeals together as they were filed against the same order of the Consolidation Officer and decided the same by his order dated 09.02.2001. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the Appeal No. 621 filed by Ram Samujh and others and allowed the Appeal No. 983 filed by Raj Dei and others. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of Appeal, Smt. Raj Dei died and was substituted by her two sons i.e. petitioner nos. 1 and 2. 7. In the order dated 09.02.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), it was held that Jagannath was the sole tenant of the land in dispute. On his death, the land devolved upon his widow Bachauna and on the death of Smt. Bachauna, her daughter Raj Dei was entitled to be recorded as sole tenant of the land in dispute. 8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had recorded the finding that the name of Ram Samujh, Nageshwar and others had been wrongly recorded in Khatauni of 1369 to 1371 Fasli, which continued also in the Basic Year khatauni. It was also found by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the name of Smt. Bachauna had been tried to be removed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 by filing a case for correction of papers before the Tehsildar, which was rejected by him in 1963. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the Consolidation Officer had wrongly placed reliance upon the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954 passed by the Munsif Gonda, which compromise was doubtful as the land in dispute was Sirdari land which was not transferable and there was no proof that the land in dispute was jointly inherited by Ganesh and Jagannath, sons of Chhitai. 9. Against the orders dated 09.02.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973, two Revisions were filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 10. 9. Against the orders dated 09.02.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973, two Revisions were filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 10. The two Revisions were decided by the common judgment dated 20.05.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the Revisions were allowed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that respondent nos. 2 to 5 were sole tenants of the land in dispute and directed that the entries made in the Basic Year Khatauni should be maintained. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973 in so far as it directed half share of the land in question to be recorded in the name of Mst. Bachauna and her legal heirs Raj Dei and her sons, and also the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 09.02.2001, by which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) directed that the land in dispute be recorded in the name of Mst. Bachauna and her legal heirs alone. Instead, the Deputy Director of Consolidation declared that the land in question to be divided Per Stirpes equally between sons and grand sons of Ganesh i.e. Nageshwar, Rameshwar, Ram Samujh and others, the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5. 12. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the Deputy Director of Consolidation agreed with the findings of learned courts below that prior to the start of consolidation operations, the name of Mst. Bachauna had been removed without any order of any competent authority, still he held opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 to be entitled to be recorded as Sirdars of the land in question. It has been submitted that the order under challenge by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is contradictory in nature and ought to be set aside by this Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the judgment on the basis of compromise decree dated 07.01.1954 passed by the Munsif Gonda which was passed without jurisdiction. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the terms of the compromise dated 30.11.1953 said to have been entered into between Mst. Bachauna and Nageshwar, Ram Samujh and others, by which Mst. Bachauna agreed that after her death, her share shall also be forcibly occupied by the plaintiffs, Nageshwar and others. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the terms of the compromise dated 30.11.1953 said to have been entered into between Mst. Bachauna and Nageshwar, Ram Samujh and others, by which Mst. Bachauna agreed that after her death, her share shall also be forcibly occupied by the plaintiffs, Nageshwar and others. It has also been submitted that the compromise was actually never brought into effect and even after the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954, there is no proof on record to show that after the death of Mst Bachauna, her share in question was occupied by force by respondent nos. 2 to 5. 14. Since Sri. S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent, who had filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 failed to appear and assist this Court and the matter being 17 years old was being continuously listed peremptorily, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 15. The counter affidavit states that the land in dispute was initially recorded in the name of Chhitai as Sirdar and after his death, the land came into the possession of his sons Ganesh and Jagannath. Since Ganesh was the elder son, his name was mentioned in the revenue records. After the death of Ganesh, the name of Jagannath was recorded because he was the oldest and the karta in the family and the sons of Ganesh were minors. After the death of Jagannath, the name of Mst. Bachauna was recorded wrongly. The land should have been recorded in the names of plaintiffs Nageshwar, Ram Samujh and others as Sirdars. Nageshwar, Rameshwar, Ram Samujh and Sunder sons of Ganesh filed a Suit against Mst. Bachauna, widow of Jagannath, namely, Regular Suit No. 185 of 1953 in the court of Munsif Gonda under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, wherein they prayed for declaration as Sirdar. 16. In the said civil suit, a compromise had occurred between the parties where Mst. Bachauna had admitted the share of the sons of Ganesh, and it was also agreed that after her death, the land in question could be taken possession of by the plaintiffs Nageshwar, Rameshwar, Ram Samujh, Sunder and others. 16. In the said civil suit, a compromise had occurred between the parties where Mst. Bachauna had admitted the share of the sons of Ganesh, and it was also agreed that after her death, the land in question could be taken possession of by the plaintiffs Nageshwar, Rameshwar, Ram Samujh, Sunder and others. On the basis of such compromise, the decree was passed on 07.01.1954 by the Munsif Gonda and on the basis of such compromise decree, entries were made in Khatauni of 1369 to 1371 Fasli and the names of Mst. Bachauna and Nageshwar and others were recorded as Sirdars. 17. It has repeatedly been emphasized in the counter affidavit that the land came to be recorded in the name of respondent nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of the compromise decree passed by the Munsif Gonda, which was final and which was never challenged. Even though Smt. Raj Dei filed objections under Section 9A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, she did not challenge the decree dated 07.01.1954, before any competent Appellate Court. 18. It has also been submitted that when the objections of Jag Ram on the basis of the possession were rejected by the Consolidation officer, Jag Ram had filed an Appeal which was rejected by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 24.10.1972, and this order became final against which no Revision was preferred by Jag Ram and as such claim of half share in favour of Jag Ram by the petitioners was illegal and therefore the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973 was vitiated and was rightly set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Jag Ram had no right after the dismissal of his Appeal No. 1318 even to claim share on the disputed land on the basis of the alleged Will executed by Mst. Bachauna, his grand mother, as a widow of a Sirdar was not entitled to execute any such Will under the land laws then in operation. 19. Counsel for the petitioner Shri R.K. Saini was heard on 21.2.2020 by this Court and judgment was reserved, leave was granted to the counsel for the petitioner to submit case laws, if he wished to buttress his case. Written submissions and case laws have been filed under the signatures of Sarva Sri. S.K. Mehrotra, Advocate, Sri. I.D. Shukla, Advocate and Sri. R.K. Saini, Advocate on 29.01.2020. Written submissions and case laws have been filed under the signatures of Sarva Sri. S.K. Mehrotra, Advocate, Sri. I.D. Shukla, Advocate and Sri. R.K. Saini, Advocate on 29.01.2020. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that no copy has been served of such written submissions on the counsel for the respondents. This court cannot appreciate a completely new argument raised for the first time in written submissions without any pleading in this regard in the Writ Petition. Nevertheless since a question of law is being raised, the Court can take judicial notice of same and deal with it. 20. In the written submissions filed by the counsel for the petitioner, a new case has been set up with regard to the question whether a Declaratory Suit for Sirdari rights could have been filed before the civil court in the year 1953, as has been alleged by the respondents. It has been submitted that under Section 339 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a list of enactments which had been repealed with effect from the date of vesting i.e. with effect from 01.07.1952 has been given. List I of Schedule III of the Act mentions that United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 had also been repealed. Therefore, with effect from 01.07.1952, no Suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for declaration of rights could be filed by a tenant. It has also been submitted that as per the case set up by the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 before the Consolidation Courts, their predecessors had filed a Declaratory Suit No. 185 of 1953 before the court of Munsif Gonda against Bachauna. It was claimed that as a consequence of a compromise entered into between the parties, Munsif’s Court had decreed the suit on 07.01.1954. As a result of such decree, Bachauna admitted to the right of predecessors of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 to be recorded as Sirdars of the land in question along with Smt. Bachauna and after the death of Smt. Bachauna they were entitled to take over possession of the entire land and be recorded as Sirdars. 21. It has further been submitted that the said Sirdari rights were recognized for the first time by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under Section 129. “Sirdari” right was not mentioned in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. 21. It has further been submitted that the said Sirdari rights were recognized for the first time by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under Section 129. “Sirdari” right was not mentioned in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Under Section 21 of the U.P. Tenancy Act only seven classes of tenants had been mentioned and Sirdar was not mentioned therein as tenant. Therefore, there was no question of seeking a declaration of Sirdari rights by filing a suit under the U.P. Tenancy Act by the predecessors of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 on 05.03.1953. 22. It has been submitted that after the enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act with effect from 01.07.1952, only a Declaratory Suit under Section 229-B could have been filed before the revenue courts. Here also, even with the coming into force of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a suit for declaration could be filed only for Asami right. Initially, there was no provision for filing suit seeking Sirdari rights. It was only through an Amendment which Came into effect on 28.05.1956, that Section 229-B was substituted providing for a declaratory suit seeking Sirdari rights by making a provision in sub-section (3) of section 229-B. It has been submitted that in view of the statutory provisions, it can safely be assumed that Tenancy Act being repealed, with effect from 01.07.1952, no suit could have been filed under the said Act in 1953 for declaration of tenancy rights in the civil court. Even under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, there was no provision for declaration of Sirdari rights by the Revenue court till the Amendment in the Act was carried out in May, 1956. Therefore no suit for declaration by the predecessors of respondent nos. 2 to 5 claiming Sirdari right could be filed either in the civil court under the Tenancy Act or under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 1953. 23. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Kishori alias Lallo vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1988 (6) LCD 39, wherein it has been held that suits under Section 229-B or Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were cognizable by civil courts before 28.05.1956. After that date only revenue courts could entertain suits filed under section 229-B or 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 24. After that date only revenue courts could entertain suits filed under section 229-B or 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 24. This court has carefully perused the amendments carried out in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act from time to time as mentioned in the commentary on “Law of Zamindari Abolition in U.P. by Shri S.P. Srivastav. The book refers to the legislative changes in Section 229-B made from time to time. The Section earlier referred to an Asami claiming a right either exclusively or jointly with any other person having the right to sue the land holder for a declaration of his being an Asami. This was added by the U.P. Land Reforms Amendment Act 20 of 1954, which came into effect from 10.10.1954. 25. The Section was substituted by U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 8 of 1956 which came into effect from 28.05.1956. The language now introduced was as follows:- “229-B - (1) Any person claiming to an asami of a holding whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue the land-holder: (a) for a declaration that he is an asami of the holding. (b) for a declaration of his share therein. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as an asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as a defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a sirdar with the amendment that for the word “landholder” the words “the State Government” and the “Gaon Sabha” are substituted therein.” 26. It has further been submitted that although the statutory provisions as amended from time to time were not referred to at all before the learned court below, but the fact that a declaration of Sirdari rights could not be sought under the U.P. Tenancy Act or under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by filing a suit for declaration in 1953 is a fact which can be taken notice of judicially. Under Section 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Court has to take judicial notice of the laws in the territory of India. The statutory provisions and the amendments carried out in the same have to be noticed by this Court even if the same had not been noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Under Section 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Court has to take judicial notice of the laws in the territory of India. The statutory provisions and the amendments carried out in the same have to be noticed by this Court even if the same had not been noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been submitted that since the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was based upon the compromise decree of 07.01.1954 passed by the Munsif Gonda which itself was non est in the eyes of law, the entire claim of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 falls to the ground. It is settled principle of law that if the foundation is removed, the whole superstructure falls to the ground. Reference has been made to the maxim “Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus” as propounded by the Supreme Court in Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3243 , State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam and Another, 2001 (10) SCC 191 : AIR 2010 SC 3745 , referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-M.D. Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha, 2011 (5) SCC 142 . 27. Apparently, the argument raised in the written submissions by the counsel for the petitioner is correct. However, this Court having perused the order impugned has found that this writ petition can be allowed on another more plausible ground. 28. A perusal of the plaint filed before the court of Munsif Gonda (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) shows that the sons of Ganesh had filed the said suit praying for a Declaratory Decree in their favour as Sirdars of the land in question and in the alternative, if it could not be proved that the land in question was the joint Sirdari holding of the plaintiffs and the defendant, then the plaintiffs be held to have perfected their right as having adverse possession over all the land in question since long. The details of 91 plots of land ad-measuring a total of 13.23 acres of land had been given in the said plaint. The grounds for the relief claimed before the civil court are the same as have been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents i.e. earlier the land in question was the Sirdari of Chhitai which devolved upon his two sons Ganesh and Jagannath. The grounds for the relief claimed before the civil court are the same as have been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents i.e. earlier the land in question was the Sirdari of Chhitai which devolved upon his two sons Ganesh and Jagannath. At first, the name of Ganesh alone was recorded in the revenue records but later on after his death and his sons, the plaintiffs, being minor, the land came to be recorded in the name of Jagannath. The land in question however still remained in the joint possession of all the members of the joint family. After the death of Jagannath, his widow Bachauna came to be wrongly recorded as Sirdar of land in question and gaining knowledge of such wrong recording of name of Bachauna alone as Sirdar of the land in question, the suit had been filed for declaration. 29. A copy of the compromise allegedly entered into between the parties dated 30.11.1953 is also on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that it was agreed between the parties that since both were in possession they would get the land properly partitioned by the competent court and after the death of Bachauna the Plaintiffs shall also have the right to take over the land now recorded in the name of Bachauna. The Suit No. 185 of 1953 was decided in terms of the compromise which was made part of the decree by the Munsif by his order dated 07.01.1954. 30. The Consolidation Officer in his order dated 22.11.1973 observed that the land in question was recorded in the name of Jagannath son of Chhitai in 1345 Fasli and came to be recorded in the name of his widow Bachauna in 1360 Fasli. After the civil suit was filed for declaration by the sons of Ganesh, a compromise was entered into between the parties and in terms of the compromise, the Munsif court had passed a decree dated 07.01.1954. In the compromise it was agreed that Bachauna shall enjoy half share of the land in dispute till her death and the plaintiffs will have half share. The formal partition had to be applied for before the competent court of law. After the death of Bachauna, her share could also be taken over by the plaintiffs. In the compromise it was agreed that Bachauna shall enjoy half share of the land in dispute till her death and the plaintiffs will have half share. The formal partition had to be applied for before the competent court of law. After the death of Bachauna, her share could also be taken over by the plaintiffs. Also, that an application for correction of records was filed before the Tehsildar Gonda registered as Case No. 36 by the heirs of Ganesh and on the basis of a family settlement dated 7.1.1963/21.1.1963/19.2.1963, which was produced before the Tehsildar, a prayer was made that the name of Bachauna be removed from the records. The Tehsildar however disbelieved such compromise. A copy of the Tehsildar’s order dated 17.12.1963 was produced by Smt. Rajdei before the Consolidation Officer which showed the Case No. 36 was dismissed by the Tehsildar for non prosecution. The Consolidation Officer found that the name of Smt. Bachauna had been wrongly removed from the revenue records and decided the objection of Smt. Rajdei to the extent that he held that both Jagannath and Ganesh had inherited the land from common ancestor Chhitai and that the heirs of Jagannath and Ganesh were entitled to half share of land in dispute per stirpes. 31. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was dealing with Appeals, namely, Appeal No. 621 filed by the predecessors of opposite party number 2 to 5, and Appeal No. 983 filed by Rajdei against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973. Both the Appeals were clubbed and decided together. It was argued before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by Smt. Rajdei that she was the daughter of Bachauna and Jagannath and the land in dispute was the sole Kashtkari land of Jagannath. A true copy of the field book of 1366 Fasli to 1375 Fasli was produced. In 1372 Fasli, Bachauna was recorded along with Nageshwar, Rameshwar, Ram Samujh and another over the land in question. However, in 1373 Fasli the name of Bachauna was removed and the names of only the predecessors of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were mentioned. No order could be produced by the predecessors of opposite parties 2 to 5 regarding removal of the name of Bachauna from the Khatauni of 1373 Fasli. However, in 1373 Fasli the name of Bachauna was removed and the names of only the predecessors of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were mentioned. No order could be produced by the predecessors of opposite parties 2 to 5 regarding removal of the name of Bachauna from the Khatauni of 1373 Fasli. The opposite parties had relied upon the decree of compromise dated 07.01.1954 but in the said decree passed in terms of the compromise, Bachauna had agreed to giving half share to the plaintiffs only. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) observed that a Sirdar could not agree to transfer Sirdari by a compromise, as Sirdari rights were non-transferable and such transfer would be illegal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) also observed that no document could be produced by the opposite parties to show that the land in question was recorded in the name of the common ancestor Chhitai, and that his two sons Jagannath and Ganesh inherited the Sirdari right to the property. The revenue records showed the name of Jagannath alone to be recorded as Sirdar in 1345 Fasli. In 1360 Fasli, Bachauna the widow of Jagannath, became the sole recorded Sirdar Which continued up to 1371 Fasli in the Khatauni and also in the Khasra. Since no document could be produced by the heirs of Ganesh to show that Ganesh and Jagannath were jointly recorded as Sirdar of the land in dispute, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the name of the sons of Ganesh had been wrongly entered in the Khatauni of 1372 and 1373 Fasli on the basis of an illegal compromise entered into between the parties as mentioned in the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954. 32. A. Sirdar could not agree to share his Sirdari rights as they were not transferable and any compromise entered into by Smt. Bachauna widow of Jagannath could not have been relied upon by the Munsif Gonda. A compromise decree based on an illegal compromise was void and hence non est. Hence, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973 and directed that the name of Jagannath and thereafter of Bachauna and then of their daughter Rajdei and her sons Jagram and Ram Deo alone could be recognized as tenure holders of Khata number 93. 33. Hence, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1973 and directed that the name of Jagannath and thereafter of Bachauna and then of their daughter Rajdei and her sons Jagram and Ram Deo alone could be recognized as tenure holders of Khata number 93. 33. It is evident from the order impugned dated 20.05.2002 that the Deputy Director of Consolidation first considered the pedigree as indicated in the Revisions filed by respondent nos. 2 to 5. It had been submitted before him that Khata no. 93 was recorded since the very beginning i.e. since 1345 Fasli in the name of Chhitai, the common ancestor under Category III. Later on, it came to be recorded in the name of Jagannath under Category II. After the death of Jagannath, which occurred before the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act came into operation, the Category II entry was made in the name of his widow Smt. Bachauna. Smt. Bachauna was reported to have made out a registered Will deed on 30.04.1948 in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and later on she executed a Will deed on 04.01.1952 in favour of her grandson Jag Ramthe petitioner no. 1 with respect to the same property. However, such Will deeds, did not give any right to either the respondents or to the petitioner no. 1 as they had been made out by Smt. Bachauna as the Sirdar of khata no. 93. No rights could devolve on the basis of such Will deeds which were executed without any entitlement in the testator to do so. 34. The Deputy Director of Consolidation then referred to the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954 passed by the Munsif, Gonda and thereafter to the entries in the Khatauni of 1369 to 1371 Fasli, where the names of respondent nos. 2 to 5 came to be jointly recorded with the name of Smt. Bachauna. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order has considered the judgments rendered by the Consolidation Officer, Bankati, Gonda dated 19.03.1972 rejecting the case of petitioner no. 1 that he be recorded as the sole tenure holder of Khata no. 93 on the basis of adverse possession as he has been recorded since long over the property in question under Category IX. 1 that he be recorded as the sole tenure holder of Khata no. 93 on the basis of adverse possession as he has been recorded since long over the property in question under Category IX. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also observed that against the order dated 19.03.1972 passed by the Consolidation Officer against Jag Ram, Jag Ram had filed a Revision which Revision was also rejected and the matter was not taken any further by Jag Ram. The petitioner no. 1’s claim on the basis of adverse possession was hence rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 35. While considering the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on merits, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has based his order on the fact that the land in question had been recorded in the name of Jagannath alone as Sirdar and was not the joint tenancy of Jagannath and Ganesh having been inherited from their common ancestor one Chhitai. After Jagannath's death, the property came to be recorded in the name of Mst. Bachauna as Sirdari land and after Mst. Bachauna, the land devolved on her daughter Smt. Raj Dei whose sons the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, were entitled to be recorded as owners of the land in question. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the observations of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) regarding the doubtfulness of the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954 passed by the Munsif Gonda to be misconceived and untenable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the alleged Will deeds executed by Mst. Bachauna in 1948 and 1952 were without any entitlement as she was only Sirdar of the property in question and therefore, liable to be ignored. 36. On the basis of the evidence recorded by the learned courts below, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that Mst. Bachauna during her lifetime did not challenge the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954 before any court. She acquiesced to the names of Nageshwar, Ram Samujh and others, being recorded in the Khatauni on the basis thereof. After several years of death of Mst. Bachauna, Smt. Raj Dei filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming that her father Jagannath was the sole tenant and that she should therefore be given the entire property as she was his sole legal heir and property would devolve on her. After several years of death of Mst. Bachauna, Smt. Raj Dei filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming that her father Jagannath was the sole tenant and that she should therefore be given the entire property as she was his sole legal heir and property would devolve on her. The Consolidation Officer in his order dated 22.11.1973 had found that under the compromise decree land had to be formally partitioned between the heirs of Jagannath and of Ganesh equally. 37. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that only on the basis of the compromise decree half share could not have been given to Jagannath and to his legal heirs i.e. Mst. Bachauna, Raj Dei, Jag Ram and Ram Dev thereafter. If the compromise decree dated 07.01.1954 was to be followed in its entirety, the land would have devolved on the sons of Ganesh i.e. Nageshwar, Ram Samujh and others as it was Sirdari land and could not have been passed on by Mst. Bachauna to her daughter i.e. Smt. Raj Dei, the mother of the two petitioners herein. It was observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the Consolidation Officer having found that the name of Mst. Bachauna continued to exist on the khatauni even after the compromise decree was passed on 07.01.1954 should have examined the question of declaration of ownership of Sirdari land. If the compromise decree of Munsif, Gonda dated 07.01.1954 was to be followed, then the decree had provided for the land in question to remain in the name of Mst. Bachauna only till her death, and to thereafter devolve upon the sons of Ganesh i.e. Nageshwar, Ram Samujh and others, the predecessors of respondent nos. 2 to 5. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also found that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) fell into the same error when he altogether ignored the decree dated 07.01.1954 and even when there was no challenge to the same, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had observed it to be apparently obtained fraudulently. 38. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order impugned has referred to the argument raised by the counsel for the revisionist that a suit for declaration of Sirdari rights could be filed before the civil court in the year 1953 and has cited a judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court and reported in 1985 ALJ 592. 38. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order impugned has referred to the argument raised by the counsel for the revisionist that a suit for declaration of Sirdari rights could be filed before the civil court in the year 1953 and has cited a judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court and reported in 1985 ALJ 592. This Court has carefully scanned both the volumes of 1985 Allahabad Law Journal, but could not find the case law referred to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order impugned, the citation alone being given and there being no cause title. Perhaps there is a typographical error. This court has also noticed that by the substitution of sub-section 229-B by the Act of 1956, sub-section (3) was added where a provision has been made that if a person claims to be a Sirdar, the word “landholder“ used in the initial Section shall be substituted for the words the ”State Government“ and the “Gaon Sabha.” Meaning thereby that if a person claims a declaration as Sirdar, he has to implead the State Government and the Gram Sabha as necessary parties to such a suit. 39. Under Section 18 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the State created rights in favour of persons who held the land under different classes of tenure of U.P. Tenancy Act. Under Section 19, Sirdari rights were conferred on a number of persons holding different classes of tenancies mentioned under the Tenancy Act. Under Section 21 Asami rights were conferred on those in actual possession of the land on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. A Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Narayan Dubey vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1973 (3) RD 328, was dealing with a case where the appellants were recorded as sharers or co tenure holders of the plots in dispute. The respondents were entered as sub-tenants in respect of those plots in the year 1356 Fasli. In 1960 three suits were filed for declaration under Section 229-C the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The parties then entered into a compromise in which it was admitted by the respondents that the appellants were Bhumidhars and the respondents had no interest in the disputed property. The Suits were consequently decreed. Later on the respondents applied for setting aside the decrees on the ground that they were obtained fraudulently. The parties then entered into a compromise in which it was admitted by the respondents that the appellants were Bhumidhars and the respondents had no interest in the disputed property. The Suits were consequently decreed. Later on the respondents applied for setting aside the decrees on the ground that they were obtained fraudulently. These applications were pending when Consolidation operations began in the village concerned. The Consolidation Authorities held that the suits under Section 229-C were not maintainable because on the date when the suits were filed the respondents had become Sirdars. The Consolidation Authorities also held that the admission of the respondents that they were not Adhivasis could not operate against them as the Statute itself provided that a person recorded as an occupant in 1356 Fasli would become an Adhivasi from the date of vesting and with effect from 30.10.1954 had become Sirdar and the appellants ceased to be Bhumidhars by operation of law. The Division Bench considered two questions (1) Whether the entry of 1356 Fasli in favour of the respondents was fictitious and (2) what was the legal effect of the compromise decree by which the suit had been decreed under section 229-C. 40. The Division Bench held that Section 229-C provided for a suit for declaration of a person claiming to be an Adhivasi. Such a suit was maintainable only so long as a person could in law claim to be an Adhivasi. With effect from 30.10.1954, when Chapter IX was added to the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Adhivasis became Sirdars and the erstwhile landholders lost their interest. The Court held that after 30.10.1954, the respondents could no longer be termed as Adhivasis and therefore suit for declaration of rights under Section 229-C was not maintainable. On the other hand, a suit for declaration of rights of a person as Sirdar or Bhumidhar could only be filed under Section 229-B of the Act, but in view of sub-section (3) of Section 229-B such a suit for declaration lay primarily against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha. 41. On the other hand, a suit for declaration of rights of a person as Sirdar or Bhumidhar could only be filed under Section 229-B of the Act, but in view of sub-section (3) of Section 229-B such a suit for declaration lay primarily against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha. 41. The Division Bench relied upon the judgment rendered by an earlier division bench in Parsottam vs. Narottam, 1970 ALJ 505, where it was held that a suit for declaration of Bhumidhari or Sirdari rights is to be filed against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and any other person who claims Bhumidhari or Sirdari rights, in such land has to be impleaded as a party. It was held that the State Government and the Gaon Sabha are necessary parties to such a suit and therefore any decree on the basis of compromise without their consent could be validly ignored by the Consolidation Authorities. The appellants claimed themselves to be Bhumidhars. The dispute whether the defendant respondents were still Sirdars had to be adjudicated only in a suit under Section 229-B where the State Government and the Gaon Sabha were also necessary parties. The Revenue Court was not competent to look into the agreement between the parties and to give effect to it in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 229-B. It is well settled that there is no estoppel against the statute. If the statute requires that declaration of rights of a Sirdar can take place only in the presence of the State Government and the Gaon Sabha, then an agreement in the absence of these parties would be violative of such a statutory provision. 42. In Saral Tiwari alias Jagdish Tiwari vs. Board of Revenue, 2007 (103) RD 54, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was considering whether a compromise between the parties in a suit for declaration of Bhumidhari, rights under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was not signed by the Gaon Sabha or the State, could result in a valid decree. The Court considered the fact that the plaintiff was seeking tenancy right in the land in dispute on the basis of possession. The Court considered the fact that the plaintiff was seeking tenancy right in the land in dispute on the basis of possession. It was not a case where declaration of already existing tenancy right was being claimed by the plaintiff whose name even though he was in possession, was not recorded in the Khatauni for some reason. This Court held that tenancy rights being regulated by the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a fresh tenancy right could not be created in favour of a person on the basis of a compromise without Gaon Sabha and the State either conceding or being signatories to the said compromise. 43. The Explanation under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. provides that an agreement or a compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. This Explanation gives a requirement that a compromise should be lawful to become binding. In a Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the State Government and the Gaon Sabha are necessary parties. If they do not join in the compromise, then it is not a lawful compromise. 44. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Arjan Singh vs. Punit Ahluwalia, 2009 (107) RD 259 , that “when a compromise is entered into, the court has a duty to see as to whether the same meets the requirements of law. A compromise decree which does not satisfy the requirements of law is not legal. It would be unlawful. It therefore cannot be recorded.” 45. In Budhlal and Another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and Others, 1982 SCC Online All 407, a Division Bench of this Court considered the question referred to it by learned single judge as to whether a Sirdar could co-opt a third person as Sirdar with her and, if so, what rights the co-opted person will have during the lifetime of the Sirdar and thereafter? The Division Bench reiterated the law as stated by the single judge of the Court in Kalawati vs. Consolidation Officer, 1968 ALJ 126. 46. In the case before the Division Bench, the co-option was alleged to have been affected in 1953 or 1954 that is to say, after the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. 46. In the case before the Division Bench, the co-option was alleged to have been affected in 1953 or 1954 that is to say, after the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. The Division Bench considered the meaning of co-option and held that cooption is agreeing to have another person as a co-sharer or in the co-tenancy of the Sirdari rights. The petitioners had claimed a share in the holding of one Smt. Brij Rani on the ground of express co-option in 1953 or 1954 as well as by continued co-sharing in the cultivation since then. They also claimed to have acquired co tenancy rights by estoppel and acquiescence. The Larger Bench held that in view of the judgment rendered in Kalawati (supra), both kinds of claims were invalid and could not be upheld or enforced by any court of law. 47. Co-option was dealt with under Section 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act under which a written agreement by the Zamindar was necessary. Smt. Brij Rani was the sole Sirdar of the holding. Under the Tenancy Act, she could have created a co-tenency by co-option. It was alleged that she had given her consent for recording of the names of the defendants in the revenue papers, but the Court held that this could not in law create co-tenancy right or act as estoppel. It was held that there could be no estoppel against the law. It was held that under the Tenancy Act, a co-tenancy could be created in three ways, that is, (1) by inception, a person claiming to be a cotenant from the very inception of tenancy (2) by succession and (3) by co-option. 48. The Court held that the position under the Tenancy Act was that a person could also become a co-tenant by estoppel or acquiescence. The reason was that although transfer of tenancy holding was prohibited, letting was permitted with the consent of the landlord under section 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939. Interpreting those provisions, this Court in earlier decided cases had held that it was not exhaustive and a person could become a co-tenant by acquiescence or estoppel. 49. Under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, however, transfer of a Sirdari holding was prohibited under Section 153. Interpreting those provisions, this Court in earlier decided cases had held that it was not exhaustive and a person could become a co-tenant by acquiescence or estoppel. 49. Under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, however, transfer of a Sirdari holding was prohibited under Section 153. The interest of a Sirdar on his executing a transfer becomes extinguished under section 190 (1) (cc). Thus there was an absolute prohibition against transfers. There was no exception like Section 33, Tenancy Act. Hence if a Sirdar could not transfer or permit another to be a co-sharers in the Sirdari holdings directly, he could not do it indirectly also by acquiescence or estoppel. 50. As observed in Kalawati (supra), the position under the Tenancy Act was that a person could become a cotenant by estoppel or acquiescence or even by co-option; there is however no way in which a person could become a co-tenant by co-option or acquiescence or estoppel under the Zamindari Abolition Act insofar as the Sirdari holdings were concerned. The petitioners in Budhlal (supra) had also failed to establish that they had perfected their title by adverse possession as by claiming co-tenancy, they had admitted that the erstwhile sole Sirdar Smt. Brij Rani still held one third of the land. 51. Considering the facts of the instant case and in view of the law settled by this Court as aforementioned, this Court finds that the compromise allegedly entered into between Bachauna and the plaintiffs on 30.11.1953 in Declaratory Suit No. 185/1953 was not signed by the Gaon Sabha or the Collector on behalf of the State. Moreover, the Munisf Gonda in disposing of the Declaratory Suit for Sirdari Rights in terms of such a compromise failed to notice that under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Tenancy rights or Sirdari rights were non transferable and any compromise between the parties to the Suit which led to transfer of Sirdari rights against the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was void under Section 190 (1)(cc) of the Act. The compromise decree thus could not have been relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order impugned dated 20.05.2002 being misconceived is set aside. The order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 09.02.2001 is affirmed. The writ petition is allowed.