JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the judgment of Board of Revenue dated 3rd October, 1969 and also against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 1st January, 1955 dismissing the petitioners' suit filed under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. Lal Das and Nathu Lal, petitioners, filed a suit under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for partition of their share in the Bhumidhari and sirdari land in dispute. The suit was contested by Baburam and Dorilal, sons of Mewa Ram and Bhagwandas, son of Indal. The petitioners claimed ?rd share in the land while opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 contended that each of them had equal shares. The trial court, however, decreed the plaintiffs suit and upheld the petitioners claim of ?rd share. A preliminary decree was prepared. On appeal by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5, the Additional Commissioner partly set aside the judgment of the trial court a and modified the decree to the effect that the plaintiffs were co-tenants to the extent of ?rd share while defendants 1 to 3 were declared entitled to ?rd share. On an appeal by the petitioners, the Board of Revenue upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue on several grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has in the first place urged that the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue committed a patent error of law in refusing to place any reliance on a decree passed by the Revenue Court on 15th December, 1952 in between the parties, according to which the petitioners were held entitled to ?rd share. In order to appreciate this contention it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. The pedigree as given in paragraph 2 of the petition shows that Rewaram, Biharilal and Shobha Ram were co-sharers in the land in question. Biharilal had no issues, he, therefore, released his share in the land in question in favour of Baldeo Prasad and Mukundram, sons of Shobha who were the co-sharers in the land in dispute. 4. The pedigree as given in paragraph 2 of the petition shows that Rewaram, Biharilal and Shobha Ram were co-sharers in the land in question. Biharilal had no issues, he, therefore, released his share in the land in question in favour of Baldeo Prasad and Mukundram, sons of Shobha who were the co-sharers in the land in dispute. 4. In order to regularise the arrangement and to ascertain the shares of the contents, Rewaram, Mukund Lal, Baldeo Prasad and Biharilal filed six different suits on 24th May, 1951 for declaration of their shares under Sec. 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Rewaram and Indal, predecessors-in-interest of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and to the Zamindars. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure `A' to the petition. In the plaint it was specifically stated that Bihari Lal had ?rd share in the land in dispute, and he had released his share in the property in favour of Mukund Ram and Baldeo Parsad and that he had adopted Mukund Ram and Baldeo Prasad and that he had adopted Mukund Ram as his son in 1913 under a registered-deed. The plaint clearly stated that Bihari Lal had no interest in the land and, therefore, his name should be struck off. The declaration claimed was that Mukund Ram and Baldeo Prasad had ?rd share while Indal and Rewaram, predecessors-in-interest of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had ?rd share compromise was filed in all the six suits and the suits were decreed by the Revenue Court on 15th December, 1952. In accordance with the rems of the said compromise Baldeo Prasad and Mukund Ram were declared to have ?rd share and Rewaram and Indal were declared to have ?rd share in the property while Mukund Ram and Baldeo Prasad were also held to be entitled to 22 Bighas of land relating to the share of Bihari Lal and the remaining 6 Bighas of land was declared to be that of Rewaram and Indal. A decree was passed in terms of the compromise, which became final. 5. Laldas and Natthulal, the petitioners, who are the sons of Baldeo Prasad and Mukund Ram, filed a suit under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for partition out of which present petition out of which present petition has arisen. A decree was passed in terms of the compromise, which became final. 5. Laldas and Natthulal, the petitioners, who are the sons of Baldeo Prasad and Mukund Ram, filed a suit under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for partition out of which present petition out of which present petition has arisen. In that suit the petitioners claimed share according to the decree passed earlier in between the same parties by the revenue court on 15th December, 1952. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, however, challenged validity of those compromise decrees. They alleged fraud, but the courts below held that fraud was not proved. The Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue, however, held that the compromise entered into between the parties in the revenue court in 1952 was illegal and, as such, no right applicable and the suits under Sec. 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act could not be decreed in terms of the compromise filed by the parties before the Revenue Court. Both the courts ignored the compromise and decided the parties right afresh. In my opinion, the Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner committed an apparent error of law in holding the decree of the revenue court illegal and ineffective. As noted earlier, suits had been filed in May, 1951 at a time when the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was in force, which were decreed on 15th December, 1952, Admittedly, suits were pending on 30th June, 1952, therefore, suits could be tried and decrees could be passed by revenue court. 6. After the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Sec. 339 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act repealed certain statutes including the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, but the proviso to that section laid down that if any action was taken or required to be done in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the same may be taken or done as if that Act had not been repealed by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Under Sec. 342 of the Act, State Government was empowered to issue orders to remove difficulties. When the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced in July, 1952, a number of suits filed before the date of vesting were pending. Under Sec. 342 of the Act, State Government was empowered to issue orders to remove difficulties. When the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced in July, 1952, a number of suits filed before the date of vesting were pending. The State Government thought it proper to clarify the position of pending suits, it, therefore, issued U.P. Land Tenure (Legal Proceedings) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1952. This order laid down that if any suit was pending on 30th June, 1952 before any Revenue or Civil Court, such suit or proceedings was to be enquired into or decided in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The provisions contained in the Removal of Difficulties Order as well as the proviso to Sec. 339 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, make it amply clear that the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the suits filed under Sec. 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, therefore, in the present case the Revenue court had jurisdiction to pass decree in accordance with the provisions contained in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The parties to that suit could legally enter into compromise and there was no prohibition under the law restraining them from entering into any compromise, accepting the claim of plaintiffs. Under Sec. 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 release of share by a co-sharer in favour of another co-sharer was permissible. Therefore, the compromise entered into between the parties in the earlier suits and the decrees so passed on 15th December, 1952 were legal and valid. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Tewari v. Ram Baran, 1968 RD 52. The Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue failed to consider the provisions referred to above, consequently they wrongly discarded the decrees passed by the revenue court, which, was based on a compromise entered into between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties. These decrees had become final, hence were binding on the parties to the suit. The contesting respondents were not entitled to challenge those decrees. Once the earlier compromise decrees are held legal and valid, the petitioners' claim for ?rd share in the property in dispute could not be disputed. 7. These decrees had become final, hence were binding on the parties to the suit. The contesting respondents were not entitled to challenge those decrees. Once the earlier compromise decrees are held legal and valid, the petitioners' claim for ?rd share in the property in dispute could not be disputed. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is patent error of law in the judgment of the Additional Commissioner as well as in that of the Board of Revenue and the same are liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 1st January, 1965 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 3rd October, 1969. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.