ORDER B.N. Nigam, J. - Kali Dirt has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dt. 21-9-1963, copy being Annexure 3, the order dt. 20-2-1964, copy being Annexure 5 and the order dt. 15-7-1964, copy being Annexure 7 as well as the consolidation form No. 5, copy being Annexure 1. 2. In the petition I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner states that he is a sirdar and is in possession of plot No. 475/4 in village Chhajlapur, Pergana, Tahsil and District Rae Bareli. He was recorded as such in the basic record for the consolidation operations, C.H. Form No. 5 was published in the village on 31-7-1963. Neither the Petitioner nor opposite party No 5 preferred any objection. On 21 -9-1963, however, opposite party No. 5 filed a compromise deed u/s 9(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on the basis of the so-called compromise and ordered that opposite party No, 5 be recorded as trespasser over plot No. 475/4. The Petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed, Opposite party No. 5 preferred a second appeal against the order dated 21-9-1963. Opposite party No. 2 dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and allowed the appeal of opposite party No. 5. The Petitioner thereupon moved the Director of Consolidation but to no avail. 4. The question is as regards the validity of the compromise, copy of which is Annexure 2 Even though this copy is a certified copy issued by the copying department it appears that it is not as clear as the certified copy of the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 5. The copy, however, is not incorrect. Only it is not as easily legible. It appears that this compromise application was signed by the Petitioner, was verified by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and was also signed by a member and thumb impressed by another member of the consolidation committee. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has, however, urged that a compromise can be filed only when there is a dispute and notices have been issued. The learned Counsel points out that in the present case there was no dispute and no occasion for a compromise being filed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has, however, urged that a compromise can be filed only when there is a dispute and notices have been issued. The learned Counsel points out that in the present case there was no dispute and no occasion for a compromise being filed. He further points that in compliance with Rule 25(g) of the Rules framed under the U.P, Consolidation of Holdings Act as then obtaining the compromise should have been recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, should have been explained by him and should have been made in the presence of two members of the consolidation committee. It therefore, follows that even if a dispute was pending as is stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the compromise was not properly recorded. 5. In any case as the Assistant Consolidation Officer did not accept the compromise or the agreement between the parties it was necessary for him to refer the matter to the Consolidation Officer. It has been pointed out by the Deputy Director in his order, copy of which is Annexure 7: The compromise was verified by the ACO but the ACO did not accept the compromise and he rejected the objection filed by Jai Karan. It was not necessary for the Assistant Consolidation Officer to reject the compromise, He could have only held that the matter could not be settled by him, In the circumstances the file should have been forwarded to the Consolidation Officer who could then have recorded evidence of the parties. In any case it appears to me that justice has not been done in the particular case as the parties have not been allowed to adduce such evidence as they wished to do. In the circumstances I would set aside the impugned orders and direct that the case be sent to the Consolidation Officer concerned to be disposed of in accordance with law--after notice to the parties and giving them full opportunity for adducing such evidence as they desire. There will be no order as to costs.