JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This writ petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act. The petitioner had claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land on the ground that the disputed property was ancestral property. The claim of the petitioners defendants-opposite parties in the present writ petition. 2. The Trial Court and the first appellate court gave judgments for the petitioners (see Annexure 1' and 2'). Aggrieved by the judgment of the first two courts the contesting opposite parties had preferred a second appeal which has been allowed by the second appellant court through its judgment dated 30-8-1975. Against the judgment in second appeal the petitioner have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the second appellate court has, patently erred in ignoring the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Consolidation Officer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the first two courts had referred to that compromise and had recognised the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the admission contained therein. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the Board of Revenue has patently erred in brushing aside the compromise in civil suit and has wrongly held that the petitioner's case was covered by the principle of co-option the sirdari right. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the claim of the petitioners was of devolution and ultimately settlement in ancestral property and no question of co-option arose in the circumstances of the present case. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has tried to refuse the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to him the Board was fully justified in negativing the claim of the present petitioners. 5. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. This much is evident from the judgment of the revenue court that there were two compromises between the parties-one in a civil suit and another before the Consolidation Officer. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the second appellate court indicates the second appellate court has not at all addressed itself to the compromise before the Consolidation Officer. This much is evident from the judgment of the revenue court that there were two compromises between the parties-one in a civil suit and another before the Consolidation Officer. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the second appellate court indicates the second appellate court has not at all addressed itself to the compromise before the Consolidation Officer. Since the judgment of the Board of Revenue is a judgment of reversal and the first two courts had referred to the compromise before the Consolidation Officer and admission contained therein I think it proper to quash the impugned judgment of the second appellate court and to ask the second appellate court a re-consider the claim of the parties strictly in accordance with law. 6. Before me it has been suggested on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that the compromise before the Consolidation Officer does not relate to the land in dispute. However, the claim of the petitioners has not been negatived by the Board on that count. Hence it becomes imperative to ask the second appellate to the compromise before the Consolidation Officer and record categorical finding regarding its impact upon the claims of the parties. 7. As regards the compromise in the Civil Suit, which has not been accepted by the Board on the reasons given in its judgment the ends of justice would be met if the Board is asked to re-examine that point also in accordance with law enunciated by this court as well as the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties suggests that my observation would be construed as if I have set aside the finding and reasoning given by the second appellate court and my judgment would be construed against the contesting opposite parties in the present writ petition by the second appellate court. I make it clear that without going into the merits of the claim put forward by the counsel for the parties in this regards. I permit the parties to re-agitate that point before the second appellate court in the light of the recent law enunciated by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the second appellate court dated 30-8-1975/9-9-1975 is hereby quashed and the second appellate court is directed to decide the second appeal strictly in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the second appellate court dated 30-8-1975/9-9-1975 is hereby quashed and the second appellate court is directed to decide the second appeal strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.