JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri. Jai Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri. P.V.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party. 3. Earlier in the present petition, an application for recall was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2018, whereby the final order 07.05.1982 was recalled. The order dated 08.03.2018 reads as under:- "Today there is illness slip of Shri. J.C. Srivastava, one of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the order sheet it transpires that the application of the respondents registered as C.M. Application No.12287 of 1982 dated 26.11.1982 is pending for consideration, whereby the respondents had prayed for recalling the order dated 7.5.1982, said to have been passed on an alleged compromise which infact was based upon a forged Vakalatnama and that the respondents had never put any signatures either on the Vakalatnama or on the compromise. Further, C.M. Application No.12288 of 1982 filed by the respondents is for placing the original record of this petition in a sealed cover and in safe custody. On the said application an order was passed on 26.11.1982 whereby the operation of the order dated 7.5.1982 was stayed and further direction was issued to keep the original file, excluding the present application, in a sealed cover while the present application would be placed before the Court in open cover. According to learned counsel for the respondents, Shri. A.S. Chaudhary, no objections or counter affidavit has been filed in response to the aforesaid applications for recalling the order dated 7.5.1982. He further submits that the only effort of the counsel for the petitioner was to delay the matter somehow or the other. A perusal of the order sheet also indicates that the matter has been adjourned on dozens of occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner or on his illness slip. The order sheet further indicates that on 8.2.2018 the matter was directed to be listed peremptorily on 15.2.2018 and then on 15.2.2018 the matter was adjourned for 22.2.2018, however the case could not be taken up on the said date. Today, when the matter is listed, again Shri. J.C. Srivastava has sent his illness slip. It is high time that such matter should be dealt with ignoring the illness slip of the counsel for the parties. Today, when the matter is listed, again Shri. J.C. Srivastava has sent his illness slip. It is high time that such matter should be dealt with ignoring the illness slip of the counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner in getting this matter adjourned and further no objections/counter affidavit having been filed to the recall application, prima facie indicates that the petitioner is apprehensive of any adverse orders being passed against them, as apparently the order dated 7.5.1982 passed on the basis of a compromise is not a correct order, as the compromise actually was never entered into by the genuine respondents. For the reasons recorded above, the C.M. Application No.12287 of 1982 is allowed and the order dated 7.5.1982 is recalled. The petition is restored to it's original number. The petition may be listed for hearing in the next cause list or whenever the Bench is available and shall be listed peremptorily. The sealed cover containing the record of the Writ Petition shall now be placed along with this file. " 4. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.1976, 09.12.1976 and 18.12.1980 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad now Ayodhya (in short 'DDC'). 5. Brief facts of the case, are to the effect that Assistant Consolidation Officer (in short 'ACO') concerned, based upon the compromise decided the share of original petitioner namely Rati Pal and opposite party no.2/Kamla Prasad, real brother of the petitioner, vide order dated 05.07.1969 passed in Case No. 825 of 1969. 6. It would be apt to indicate that dispute relates to Khata No. 275 Chak No. 85 and according to order of ACO dated 05.07.1969, both the parties, based upon the compromise, were provided 1/2 share each. 7. The original petitioner (Rati Pal) after about five years filed an appeal challenging the order dated 05.07.1969 passed by the ACO in Case No. 825/1969. The appellate authority namely Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short 'SOC') dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.09.1974, after observing that appellant has not explained the delay in filing the appeal after about 5 years. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.1974, the original petitioner (Rati Pal) preferred a Revision No. 98 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'). 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.1974, the original petitioner (Rati Pal) preferred a Revision No. 98 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'). This revision was also dismissed by opposite party no.1/DDC vide order dated 31.01.1976. The relevant portion of order dated 31.01.1976 reads as under:- "Called out parties are present revisionist Ratipal filed an application today asking adjournments on the ground of illness of his counsel. On 30.7.76 too he sought adjournment on the same ground and that application was endorsed by his counsel Sri. R.P.Tewari. But today's application is supported by his counsel. Although it has been shown to be presented through counsel. The application was therefore rejected and applicant asked to engage some other counsel in case Sri. R.P. Tiwari is not in a position to argue the revision. Revisionist was given one hour time but he failed and even did not turn up. Learned counsel for O.P. was heard and I perused the appellate court file of this court. This revision was once dismissed in default on 6.2.75 and restored on his application on 1.3.75 and since then it has been pending. Revisionist has filed an appeal on 15.7.74 against the order dated 5.7.69 of the ACO in case No. 825 of 1969. The appeal was rejected on the point of limitation in the meanwhile the A.C.O.'s file was weeded out on 26.7.76 as is evident from the reply of official of R.R.K. office, Revisionist Ratipal and respondent Kamla Prasad are real brothers it appears that revisionist had come up in appeal denying the co-tenancy right to Kamla given by the ACO by way of conciliation. After a lapse of five years. The learned Section 0.C. finding the explanation of delay unsatisfactory refused to hear and decide the appeal on merit and rejected it on the point of limitation Considering the circumstances their appears no justification for interference in the orders of appellate court. This revision is accordingly dismissed." 9. It is apparent from the above quoted order, that the opposite party no.1 after taking note of the conduct of counsel for the revisionist/original petitioner (Rati Pal) proceeded to decide the case on merits. 10. After the order dated 31.01.1976, on merits, passed by the opposite party no.1/DDC, the original petitioner (Rati Pal) preferred an application dated 31.07.1976 praying therein to restore the case to its original number. 10. After the order dated 31.01.1976, on merits, passed by the opposite party no.1/DDC, the original petitioner (Rati Pal) preferred an application dated 31.07.1976 praying therein to restore the case to its original number. The application dated 31.07.1976 was rejected by opposite party no.1 vide order dated 09.12.1976. 10. After the order dated 31.01.1976, on merits, passed by the opposite party no.1/DDC, the original petitioner (Rati Pal) preferred an application dated 31.07.1976 praying therein to restore the case to its original number. The application dated 31.07.1976 was rejected by opposite party no.1 vide order dated 09.12.1976. The relevant portion of order dated 09.12.1976, as available on record, reads as under:- " mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh x;hA foi{kh dh vksj ls ckt;nkj ds izkFkZuk i= dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA jrhiky dk ;g dguk rks Bhd gS fd mUgksaus fuxjkuh dh lquokbZ ds le iqdkj gksus ij ,d izkFkZuk i= vius gLrk{kj djds fnukad 31&7&76 dks izLrqr fd;k fd izkFkhZ ds odhy Jh jktsUnz izlkn frokjh dh rfc;r l[r [kjkc gS] blfy;s vkt cgl djkus ls vleFkZ gS] vr% cgl ds fy, dksbZ vU; frfFk nsus dh d'ik dh tk;A fnukad 30&7&76 Hkh bl fuxjkuh esa cgl ds fy;s frfFk fuf'pr dh gqbZ FkhA ml fnu Hkh bl vk/kkj ij lquokbZ nwljh frfFk ds fy;s LFkfxr djus ds fy;s izkFkZuk i= jrhiky dh vksj ls muds odhy Jh jktsUnz izlkn frokjh us fn;k Fkk fd os 'kkjhfjd vLoLFkk ds dkj.k cgl rS;kj ugha dj ik;s gSaA QyLo:i fuxjkuh dh lquokbZ ds fy;s vxyh frfFk fnukad 31&7&76 nh xbZA fnukad 31&7&76 dks Hkh lquokbZ LFkxu dk izkFkZUkk i= fn;k x;k ij bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g O;Dr fd;k x;k fd fiNys fnu Hkh lquokbZ LFkfxr dj nh x;h FkhA vr,o izkFkhZ nwljk odhy fu;qDr djds cgl djok;s mlds fy;s mUgsa ,d ?kUVs dk le; fn;k x;kA fuxjkuh drkZ jrhiky us u rks nwljk odhy fu;qDr fd;k vkSj u dk;Zokgh ykSVdj izkFkZuk i= gh fn;k fd mlds odhy cgl ds fy;s vk jgs gSa] QyLo:i fuxjkuh esa foi{kh dh lqudj izLrqr fjdkMZl ns[kdj vkns'k xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k vkSj fuxjkuh ikfjr dj nh x;h \ ;gka ij mYys[kuh; gS fd ckt;nkj ds izkFkZuk i=- fnukad 31&7&76 dks jrhiky us vius odhy Jh jktsUnz izlkn frokjh ds gh ek/;e ls nkf[ky fd;k gS u fd rFkkdfFkr fu;qDr oyksdu ykyrk izlkn flag ds gLrk{kj ;k ek/;e ls ftlls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ ds odhy Jh jktsUnz izlkn frokjh fnukad 30&7&76 vkSj 31&7&76 nksuksa frfFk;ksa dks ekStwn FksA Jh jrhiky us fuxjkuh esa odkyr uke nkf[ky fn;k Fkk og Jh jkey[ku flag ,MoksdsV o Jh/kejkt flag dk uke Fkk \ okn esa fnukad 13&7&76 dk bUgksaus Jh jktsUnz izlkn frokjh o Jh ykyrk izlkn flag o Jh lHkkthr flag ds uke odkyrukek nkf[ky fd;k] ftl ij LodkjksfDr ds gLrk{kj dsoy jktsUnz izlkn frokjh us fd;k gSA blls ;g Li"V gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ Jh jktsUnz izlkn frokjh ds mifLFkr gksrs gq, u rks muls cgl djkuk pkgrk Fkk vkSj u nwljs fu;qDr odhy lsA og tku cw> dj fuxjkuh dh lquokbZ vkSj fuLrkj.k esa foyEc djkuk pkgrk FkkA KkrO; gS fd fuxjkuh fnukad 22&11&74 dks fopkjk/khu py jgh FkhA ,d ckn igys Hkh fnukad 5&52&75 dks fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vuqifLFkr esa fuxjkuh ikfjr gks x;h FkhA vkSj og jrh ds cnnk;j izkFkZuk fnukad 1&3&75 }kjk fjLVksj gks x;hA jrhiky dktnk;j izkFkZUkk i= fnukad 31&7&76 c;ku gYQh ls lEcfU/kr gh gSA pwafd fuxjkuhdrkZ ds dFkkuqlkj dgdj vius odhy ls cgl ugha djk;k ftldk mls leqfpr volj fn;k x;kA blfy;s fuxjkuh esa xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 31&7&76 dks fuujk{kj djus dk;Zokgh vkSfpR; ugha gSA 3& KkrO; gS fd jrhiky us lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdjh ds vkns'k le>kSrs fnukad 5&7&76 }kjk vius HkkbZ deyk dk dks nh x;h lg[kkrsnkjh ds fo:) vihy fnukad 15&7&74 cktnk;j fn;k Fkk tks fe;kn us vk/kkj ij [kkfjt gks x;h Fkh mlds fo:) jrhiky us fuxjkuh nk;j dh vkSj lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds le>kSrs dh i=koyh Hkh fnukad 26&7&74 dk vfHkys[kkdkj ekr QStkckn esa chM ¼u"V½ dj nh x;hA 4& vr,o cktnk;j dk izkFkZUkk i= fnukad 31&7&76 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 11. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to indicate that from the above quoted order(s) dated 31.01.1976 and 09.12.1976, it is apparent that the revisionist/original petitioner (Rati Pal) was present on the date fixed in the revision and his counsel was avoiding the proceedings pending before the opposite party no.1 and accordingly the opposite party no.1 proceeded to decide the case on merits vide order dated 31.01.1976. 12. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.1976, the original petitioner (Rati Pal) preferred a Writ Petition No. 551 of 1977 (Ratipal v. DDC and Others) and this petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.07.1980. The relevant portion of order dated 02.07.1980 on reproduction reads as under:- "The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the application for restoration application by the Dy. Director of Consolidation the revision application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order in his absence and in the absence of his counsel is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Allegedly in the year 1969 there were some reconciliation proceeding before the Assistant Consolidation officer between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner was recorded tenure holder in the basic year record. Some five years thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the settlement office Consolidation challenging the said compromise. It is not clear whether any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed or there was an affidavit complaining the delay the appeal was dismissed as the ground of delay and against the order passed in appeal a revision application was filed. Contain dates were fixed in the revision application. Ultimately was case was adjourned on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner was ill. Similar request was made on the adjourned date and the court granted one hour to engage another counsel to argue the case. The petitioner did not turn up within that time and the Deputy Director of consolidation after perusing the record and hearing the other party, decided the case on merits and the order passed by the settlement officer consolidation dismissing the appeal on the ground that the same was highly belated and this was affirmed. The petitioner moved an application for fitting aside the some on the ground that it was an ex-parte order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after looking into Vakalatnama etc. The petitioner moved an application for fitting aside the some on the ground that it was an ex-parte order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after looking into Vakalatnama etc. observed the the petitioner could engaged another counsel but did not go and the application filed by him was dismissed. The Deputy Director of consolidation also observed that one Rajendra Prasad Tewwari, Advocate, was present and he could have argued the case. It seems that the Dy. Director of Consolidation did not correctly read the record. The application which was earlier moved by Sri. Rejendra Prasad Tiwar was allowed after no objection to the name was written by the counsel for the other side and on the next date also an adjournment on the ground of illness was sought for As such there was no question of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari being present on the date of hearing. The Dy. Director of Consolidation after giving hearing to the petitioner could have affirmed the order passed by the Settlement officer Consolidation to the effect this explanation of five years was not justified but the Dy. Director of Consolidation rejected the application of restoration on certain mis-statement of facts. In these circumstances the order passed by the Joint director of consolidation dismissing the restoration application cannot be sustained. The order dated 9.12.1976 passed by the Joint Director of consolidation copy of which is filed to the writ petition as Annexure 4 is quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in directed to restore back the said application hear and decide the same in accordance with the law. In case, the said application is allowed the revision application may be heard and disposed of there after on its merit. There will be no order as to costs." 13. A perusal of above quoted order of this Court dated 02.07.1980, indicates that opposite party in terms of order of this Court, was under obligation to decide the application dated 31.07.1976 preferred for restoration of the case. 14. There will be no order as to costs." 13. A perusal of above quoted order of this Court dated 02.07.1980, indicates that opposite party in terms of order of this Court, was under obligation to decide the application dated 31.07.1976 preferred for restoration of the case. 14. After the order of writ court, the opposite party no.1, considered the application dated 31.07.1976 preferred by the original petitioner (Rati Pal) afresh and rejected the same vide detailed order dated 18.12.1980, which reads as under:- " la{ksi esa ekeyk ;g gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ rFkk izfri{kh deyk nksuksa gh lxs HkkbZ gS vkSj cklnso ds iq= gSA lEcfU/kr i{kksa ds chp l0p0v0 ds le{k okn 825@1969 esa fn0 5&7&69 dks le>kSrk gqvk vkSj mlh ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuhdrkZ jrhiky ds lkFk muds HkkbZ deyk izlkn dks Hkh l0p0v0 us foofnr vkjkth esa lg[kkrsnkj dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;kA bl vkns'k ds fo:) 15&7&74 dks jrhiky }kjk vihy nkf[ky dh xbZ fd mUgksaus dHkh dksbZ bdcky nkok fd;k vkSj u c;ku fn;kA fookfnr vkjkth ij ogh dkfct n[ky gSA 'kiFk i= esa ;g Hkh dgk fd egt xyrh deyk izlkn dk uke ntZ gks x;k gSA c0v0p0 us 23&9&74 dks foyEc ds fy, fn;k x;k dkj.k larks"k&tud u gksus ds dkj.k vihy fujLr dj fn;kA bl vkns'k ds fo:) fnukad 22&11&74 dks fuxjkuh nkf[ky dh xbZ vkSj blesa rkjh[ksa iM+rh jgrh gS vkSj fn0 30&7&74 dks fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls ;g izkFkZuki= fn;k x;k fd mlds fo}ku vf/koDrk jktsUnz izlkn frokjh fcekj gS blfy, cgl ugha rS;kj dj ik;s gSa vr% rkjh[k nh tk; mi lapkyd pdcanh us fn0 31&7&76 dh rkjh[k fn;kA 31&7&76 dks Hkh fo}ku vf/koDrk ds vLoLF;rk ds dkj.k Hkh ekSds dk izkFkZuk i= fuxjkuh drkZ us fn;kA mi lapkyd pdcanh us vkns'k ikfjr fd;k fd dy Hkh lquokbZ LFkfxr dh xbZ Fkh] izkFkhZ nwljk odhy djds cgl djkos ,d ?kaVs dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA fu/kkZfjr vof/k O;rhr gks tkus ds i'pkr fuxjkuh drkZ ugha ykSVk rks fn0 31&7&76 dks gh i=koyh ns[k dj xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gSA mlh frfFk dks cktnk;j dk ;g izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k ftls la;qDr lapkyd pdcUnh us fujLr dj fn;k FkkA loZ izFke eSa ekU; mPPk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fn0 2&7&79 ij viuk/;ku dsfUnzr djrk gwa ftlesa la;qDr lapkyd pdcUnh dk vkns'k fn0 9&12&76 blfy, fujLr dj fn;k x;k Fkk fd ekU; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k xyr rF; izLrqr fd;k x;k A dk;eh dk izkFkZuk i= 31&7&76 dks fuxjkuh drkZ }kjk vius mDr vf/koDrk Jh vkj0 ih0 frokjh ds gh ek/;e }kjk nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl izkFkZuk i= ij muds gLrk{kj gSA i=koyh esa fo}ku vf/koDrk ds vU; LFkkuksa odkyrukek ij Hkh gLrk{kj gSA muls rqyuk djus ij ;g gLrk{kj fcYdqy lgh izrhr gksrk gS A fuxjkuhdrkZ dk ;g dFku gh xyr gS fd 31&7&76 dks muds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkr ugha Fks vr% mlus Jh ykyrk izlkn flag dks u;k vf/koDrk fu;qDr fd;k Fkk rks mudh vihy drkZ ykyrk izlkn ds ek/;e ls izkFkZuk i= vkrk ;k de ls de mDr frfFk dk mudk odkyrukek i=koyh ij nkf[ky gksrk ,slk dqN ugh gSA jrhiky }kjk fn;s x;s dkj.k dnkfi larks"ktud ugha gSa A vkns'k fn0 31&7&76 xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS vkSj i{kksa dh mifLFkfr esa ikfjr gqvk gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds Hkkoukiw.kZ cgl dks lqu dj eSaus ;g Hkh ns[kus dk iz;kl fd;k fd ;fn fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lkFk dksbZ vU;k; gqvk gks rks mlds lkFk fo'ks"k lgkuqHkwfr fn[kk dj iqu% lquokbZ dj yh tk;A jrhiky vkSj deyk izlkn nksuksa lxs HkkbZ gSaA nksuksa gh i{kksa dh vksj ls reke vfHkys[k nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSA [kkrk la0 275 vk/kkj o"kZ esa jrhiky ds uke ls FkkA [kljk lkQ 1346 Q0 nkf[ky gSA 1301 Q0 dh [krkSuh Hkh nkf[ky gSA ns[kus ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd [kkrk la0 275 dh vf/kdka'k vkjkth nksuksa i{kksa ds firk cklnso ds uke ls FkhA nkf[ky dh xbZ ernkrk lwph esa nksuksa i{k }kjk nh xbZ vk;q ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd jrhiky nksuksa HkkbZ;ksa esa cM+s gSa mudk uke izfrfuf/k ds :i esa vk tkuk vLokHkkfod ugha gSA deyk dks dksbZ yM+dk ugha gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Kkr gksrk gS fd mUgksaus viuh vkjkth viuh iq=h jktirh ds uke ls LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k gS vkSj mldh vksj ls ukekarj.k ds fy;s izkFkZUkk i= fn;k x;kA bl okn dh dk;Zokgh pyus yxhA blh ckr ls ukjkt gksdj ;g dk;eh dk izkFkZuk i= jrhiky }kjk fn;k x;k izrhr gksrk gSA l0p0v0 ds vkns'k dh tkudjh mUgsa dc vkSj dSls gqbZ ugha crk;k x;k gSA foyEc dk dksbZ larks"ktud dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k gSA blfy, voj U;k;ky;ksa us 5 lky dh vof/k ds vlk/kkj.k foyEc dk e"kZ.k ugha fd;kA bl n`f"V ls fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lkFk dksbZ vU;k; okyh ckr ugha izrhr gksrkA fopkjksijkUr dk;e dk izkFkZuk i= fn0 31&7&76 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA " 15. Impeaching the order(s), learned counsel for the petitioners has argued on the merits of the case as also on the issue related to condonation of delay of about 5 years (about 1825 days) in preferring the appeal, challenging the order dated 05.07.1969 passed by the A.C.O., based upon the compromise, in Case No. 825 of 1969. 16. The appeal challenging the order dated 05.07.1969 passed by the A.C.O. was preferred after huge delay and as such, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to delve into the factual controversy related to the compromise based upon which the order dated 05.07.1969 was passed. 17. It would be apt to indicate that admittedly the relevant documents including the compromise were weeded out on 26.07.1976. 18. In regard to condonation of delay, learned counsel for the petitioners-Sri. Jai Shankar Shukla, stated that on coming to know about the final order dated 05.07.1969 the appeal was filed and from the date of knowledge of order dated 05.07.1969 the appeal was within limitation and as such, the SOC wrongly rejected the application. 19. In regard to the order of opposite party No. 1, he has also stated that original petitioner (Rati Pal) on coming to know about the final order dated 31.01.1976 passed in the Revision No. 98, the revisionist-original petitioner (Rati Pal) immediately preferred an application dated 31.07.1976 and as such, the application ought to have been allowed by the opposite party No. 1 and in declining to allow the application the opposite party No. 1 erred in law and facts both. 20. Opposing the present petition, learned counsel for the side opposite Sri. P.V. Chaudhari stated that to substantiate the aforesaid submissions no documents have been placed before this Court. 21. Elaborating the aforesaid, it is stated that neither memo of appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay have not been placed on record and as such, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of order dated 05.07.1969, is liable to be rejected. 22. He further submitted that in so far as the order dated 31.01.1976 is concerned, the same was passed on merits and accordingly the application dated 31.07.1976 itself was not maintainable. 23. 22. He further submitted that in so far as the order dated 31.01.1976 is concerned, the same was passed on merits and accordingly the application dated 31.07.1976 itself was not maintainable. 23. It is further submitted that the revisionist-original petitioner (Rati Pal) was known to the fact that the matter has been decided on 31.01.1976 as it is apparent from the order dated 31.01.1976 that he was present on the date fixed and opposite party no.1 after taking note of earlier adjournments directed the revisionist/original petitioner (Rati Pal) to engage another counsel and for this purpose provided one hour time and as such, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that revisionist-petitioner came to know about the order dated 31.01.1976 at a later point of time is completely fallaious. Prayer is to dismiss the petition. 24. Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 25. With regard to knowledge of final order dated 05.07.1969 passed in the Case No. 825 of 1969, based upon the compromise, no document has been placed before this Court from where it can be deduced that on which date revisionist/original petitioner (Rati Pal) came to know about the order dated 05.07.1969. As such, this Court is of the view that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner which is to the effect that from the date of knowledge of order dated 05.07.1969 the appeal was filed within time, have no force. 26. It would be relevant to indicate that the order dated 05.07.1969 was passed on the basis of compromise and as per this order, the shares to two real brothers and co-tenancy rights were provided to two real brothers namely Rati Pal and private opposite party No.2-(Kamla Prasad), which is permissible under Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954"). 27. In regard to submissions pertaining to knowledge of order dated 31.01.1976, it is apparent from the impugned order that the revisionist-original petitioner (Rati Pal) was well aware of the final order dated 31.01.1976 as he was present on the date fixed i.e. on 31.01.1976 in the case when the final order was passed by opposite party No.1 and in the petition this fact has not been refuted. Thus, the submissions that the original petitioner (Rati Pal) came to know about the order dated 31.01.1976 at later point of time and thereafter moved the application on 31.07.1976 praying therein to recall the order dated 31.01.1976 and restore the case to its original number are completely misconceived. 28. Further, the order dated 31.01.1976 was passed on merits and as per law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shivraji and Others v. D.D.C. and Others;, the final order cannot be recalled by opposite party no.1. 29. In view of the facts of present case, indicated above, the judgment passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 848 of 2009 (Satish Chandra Pandey v. D.D.C. and others) and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3854 of 2014 (Vasantha (Dead) through LR v. Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (Dead) through LRs.) decided on 13.02.2024 are of no help to the petitioners. 30. For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present petition. It is accordingly dismissed.