JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 23-7-79 whereby the revisional court has dealt with revisions nos. 3 and 52. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that plot no. 818 measuring 7.18 acres is a part of khata no. 132 and 2 biswa area of plot no. 818 is a part of khata no. 147. So far as the area of the aforesaid plot no. 818 in khata no. 147 is concerned. It has been alleged by the petitioners that the parties have got one biswa each according to their share. As regards 7.18 acre of plot no. 818 of khata no. 151 is concerned it has been stated before me by the petitioners that he has got 3.14 acres and the contesting opposite parties have got 0.5acres as their Sahan and about the remaining 3.14 acres they have got the area in exchange. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the parties had agreed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and he had accepted the agreement and divided the disputed plot no. 818 as indicated above. After lapes of several years an application under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been moved by the contesting opposite parties and also an appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was preferred which was dismissed by the appellate authority and the Consolidation Officer had also rejected the prayer of opposite parties under Section 42-A of the Act through his order dated 16-10-1978. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16-10-1978 and by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer of the year 1967 and the appellate order dated 10-1-79 the opposite parties preferred two revision petitions which have been decided through the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 23-7-79. How the petitioners feeling aggrieved the order of the revisional court has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. How the petitioners feeling aggrieved the order of the revisional court has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the order of the revisional court is patently erroneous as the revisional court has not dealt with the question that the appeal filed by the contesting opposite parties was much beyond time and the revisional court has unnecessarily referred to the compromise and has applied Rule 25-A to the circumstances of the present case and has thereby reopened the dispute between the parties. The learned counsel for petitioner apprehends that now the Consolidation Officer would only decide the claim of the party with regard to the area in his possession i.e., 05 acres land in possession of opposite parties as Sehan and would not lake into account the area in lieu whereof the contesting opposite parties have got other area at the time of allotment of chak. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to support the judgment of the revisional court dated 23-7-79. According to him as the compromise between the parties did not bear the signature of two members of Consolidation Committee, hence the revisional court was fully justified in Interfering with the orders of the subordinate authorities. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is apparent that the revisional court has noted the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, but has written a very cryptic order and has set aside the orders of the subordinate authorities and has sent the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits. The revisional court has patently erred in not considering the question of limitation in preferring the appeal by the contesting opposite parties hence it has erred in passing the impugned order but it is noteworthy that the revisional court has indicated in its order that the conciliation between the parties did not acquire the signatures of the members of the Consolidation Committee hence it was against the provisions of Rule 25 A of U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that there was no consolidation. There was only an agreement between the parties which was accepted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer while partitioning the disputed land between them under Section 9-C of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that there was no consolidation. There was only an agreement between the parties which was accepted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer while partitioning the disputed land between them under Section 9-C of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings. Act, but it is noteworthy that so far agreement has not been tiled in the present writ petition, hence it is difficult to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Since the case has been sent back to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits, even if the revisional court acted illegally in remanding the case it has at least provided opportunities to the parties to place their claim before the Consolidation Officer and it has set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the ground that two members of the Committee had not signed the conciliation. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that in the circumstance of the present case it is not necessary that the Member of the Committee should sign the so-called consolidation which is nothing but an agreement and it cannot be given effect to by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 8. For the sake of arguments it may be assumed that there was no agreement between the parties about the partition of the disputed land, but that did not bear the signatures of the members of the Committee. The net result would be that the compromise or conciliation would not be a legal one but if the parties have put their signature upon the agreement they would be bound by the contents thereof. As the matter has gone to the Consolidation Officer and the petitioner has failed to attach with the petition the alleged copy of the agreement. I think that it would not be proper to interfere with the order of the provisional court, though wrong and illegal as the parties have got fresh opportunities to establish their claims before the Consolidation Officer. I have no doubt that the Consolidation Officer shall deny the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. 9. As regards the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is indicated that the Consolidation Officer shall appreciate the controversy between the parties and if it is found that out of plot no. I have no doubt that the Consolidation Officer shall deny the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. 9. As regards the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is indicated that the Consolidation Officer shall appreciate the controversy between the parties and if it is found that out of plot no. 818 the contesting opposite parties have got 3.14 acres land and in lieu thereof the opposite parties have got other cultivatory area in exchange the Consolidation Officer shall take into account that aspect of the matter and the Consolidation Officer shall also look into the question whether the parties had entered into agreement before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the partition alleged by the petitioner and even if the conciliation may not be legal one if the parties have agreed to the partition suggested by the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer shall maintain the partition, after hearing both the parties and their claims in this regard. 10. With the above observation, writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the claim of the parties in the light of the observations made above, so that the petitioner may not have grievance any more to the effect that the contesting opposite parties are getting the area of 3.14 acres at the earlier occasion and improperly trying to take half of the land out of the remaining area. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.