JUDGMENT : B.D. Agarwala, J. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution the judgment and order of the Joint-Director, Consolidation, dated 10th January, 1978, has been challenged. 2. Chaks were allotted to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. When the statement of proposals was prepared, the Petitioner filed an objection to the effect that the chaks, provisionally allotted to him, were not correctly allotted and he be given another chak. An objection was also filed by Respondent No. 2 that the chak provisionally allotted to him be changed. It is the Petitioner's case that before the Consolidation Officer, the parties entered into a written compromise, to the effect that they have adjusted their own chaks and the Consolidation Officer be pleased to allot to them the chaks in accordance with the agreement. The written compromise, dated 24th February, 1976, was duly verified by the Consolidation Officer and was witnessed. The Consolidation Officer by his order of the same date accepted the compromise and directed allotment accordingly. Later, one Shyama, son of the Respondent No. 2, preferred an appeal. This appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who dismissed the same on the ground that Shyama had no locus-standi to file the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 20th March, 1976. Again after lapse of time, another appeal was preferred by the Respondent No. 2 himself before the same Settlement Officer, Consolidation. This appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, by his order dated 7th June, 1976. He held that the appeal was time-barred. He also decided the matter on merits and held that no fraud was ever played while arriving at the compromise and the compromise was arrived at by the free-will of the parties. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, further found that no evidence, whatsoever, had been adduced by the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of which it could be held that any fraud was played upon him. Revision against this order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was preferred u/s 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who allowed the same by the impugned order dated 10th January, 1978. 3. Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. 3. Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. He Las urged that the Joint-Director, Consolidation, who had decided the revision, and had passed the impugned order was necessary party to this petition, and, in his absence, the writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on this score. In view of this objection, having taken by Sri Paul, learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri G.N. Verma, as a matter of abundant caution, filed an application praying for the impleadment of the Joint-Director of Consolidation as a Respondent to this petition. A prayer in the alternative has been made that a correction be permitted to be made in the petition to the effect that, instead of words “Deputy Director”, the words “Joint-Director” be substituted. A counter-affidavit to this application has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. In my opinion, this preliminary objection has no merit. A revision was filed before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. It came up for hearing before the Joint-Director of Consolidation. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act defines “Director of Consolidation” as also including “Additional Director of Consolidation” and a “Joint-Director of Consolidation”. Sub-section (4)(A) defines the Dy. Director of Consolidation as meaning a person appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government. Both these provisions, therefore, enable the Dy. Director of Consolidation as also Joint-Director of Consolidation to also perform the duties of the Director of Consolidation under the Act. Though, it is correct that the decision impugned in the present writ petition is that of the Joint-Director of Consolidation but, at the same time, the present is not a case where there is complete absence of the revisional authority being impleaded as a Respondent to the petition. In the context of the provisions referred to above and the fact that the Dy. Director has actually been impleaded, it cannot, in my opinion, be said that the case of the Petitioner that it was only by reason of an accidental mistake that the name of the Dy. Director of Consolidation was impleaded in place of Joint-Director, has no substance. Accordingly, necessary correction has been permitted by me to be made in the petition. 4. Director of Consolidation was impleaded in place of Joint-Director, has no substance. Accordingly, necessary correction has been permitted by me to be made in the petition. 4. The question on merits which arises for consideration is as to whether, in the circumstances, the Joint-Director of Consolidation committed a manifest error of law in allowing the revision and brushing aside the compromise arrived at between the parties, and which formed the basis of allotment of chaks. I have gone through the impugned judgments and have traversed through the record of the writ petition. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, had clearly found that no case of any fraud having been played upon the Respondent No. 2 while arriving at the compromise was made out. In fact, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, held that there was no evidence, whatsoever, adduced on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, by which it could be held that any fraud was played upon. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, thus, clearly held that fraud was not established. The Dy. Director, upon his assessment of the terms of the compromise, concluded that terms of the compromise lent suspicion to the compromise. According to the view taken by him, the terms of the compromise were not to the benefit of the Respondent. The Joint-Director did hot at all advert to the question of fraud. He did not upset the finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in this regard. Even therefore, assuming that a plea relating to fraud has been raised on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, but the same stood negatived by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and a different view was not taken by the Joint-Director. It maybe noted that there was no denial on the part of the Respondent No. 2 that he had not fixed his thumb-impression on the compromise. The compromise on the face of it was verified by the Consolidation Officer. In my opinion, therefore, in this situation, it was not open in law for the Joint-Director to brush aside the compromise, merely on his own suspicion based on the terms of the compromise. 5. The compromise on the face of it was verified by the Consolidation Officer. In my opinion, therefore, in this situation, it was not open in law for the Joint-Director to brush aside the compromise, merely on his own suspicion based on the terms of the compromise. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2, tried to support the order of the Joint-Director on the ground that in view of Section 48 of the Act, it was open to him to look into the propriety of the transaction and to arrive at his own conclusion in this regard, and, then not to give effect to the compromise in the compromise proceedings. This submission, in my opinion, is based on a incorrect understanding of the language of Section 48 of the Act. Section 48 empowers the Director of Consolidation to satisfy himself as to the irregularity of the proceedings, or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the subordinate Consolidation Authorities. The propriety here spoken of is the propriety of any order passed by the Consolidation Authorities. A court or authority while passing judgment and decree on the basis of a compromise does not record any decision of its own. The compromise between the parties is the basis of his order. Hence, it is not open to the revisional authority exercising powers u/s 48, to go into the propriety of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and merely on that basis to brush aside the same. 6. Sri B.B. Paul, has then submitted that the compromise in the instant case was contrary to the scheme and object of the Act inasmuch as Section 19(e) requires allotment of a compact area at the place where the tenure-holder holds the largest part of his holding and this provision having been given a go-bye in the instant case, as per the terms of the compromise, the compromise would be one which would defeat the provisions of law and as such was void. Section 19(e) lays “down that as far as possible every tenure-holder be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. Section 19(e) lays “down that as far as possible every tenure-holder be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. In a case of compromise between the parties, leading to a contrary situation, it cannot be said that, though, it was possible, but the allotment was not made at the place where the tenure-holder held the largest part of his holding. The compromise lawfully entered into between the parties, as in the present case, would certainly form a valid basis of departure from the normal rule u/s 19(e) of the Act. As such, a compromise cannot be said to be forbidden by law or a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provision of any law. It is always open to the parties to lawfully, agree to an arrangement between themselves in relation to adjustment of chaks. The Act itself contemplates conciliation between the parties. As observed in Ram Nimnjun Singh v. Pryag Singh ILR 8 Cal 138, the terms of a compromise have to be looked at from the point of view, how the dispute presented itself to the parties at the time when the compromise was arrived at. 7. I am, hence, of the opinion that the Joint-Director manifestly erred in law in setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer and Consolidation Officer and directing fresh allotment. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that it was incumbent for the Joint-Director of Consolidation to have adjudicated upon the question as to whether the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was within time and unless the finding to the contrary of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, had been set aside by him, it was not open for him to have gone into the merits of the question. Sri Paul has, in reply, relied upon a decision of learned single Judge of this court Kalian v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1971 RD 491, where it was held that the Dy. Director, acting u/s 49 of the Act, could suo-moto consider the propriety of the order of the subordinate authority and he was not bound by the fact that the appeal to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was time-barred. It has also been contended by Sri Paul that this question of limitation had not been raised before the Joint-Director. Director, acting u/s 49 of the Act, could suo-moto consider the propriety of the order of the subordinate authority and he was not bound by the fact that the appeal to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was time-barred. It has also been contended by Sri Paul that this question of limitation had not been raised before the Joint-Director. An affidavit of the local counsel of Respondent No. 2 has also been filed in this connection. Since, I have already held above that the impugned order of the Joint-Director could not be sustained even on merits, it is not necessary to record any decision on this question. 9. This petition, hence, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10th January, 1978, of the Joint-Director of Consolidation, Mathura, is quashed. He is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above in this judgment. In the circumstances, however, parties shall bear their own costs.