JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.1.1980 passed by the revisional court whereby the order dated 29.6.67 passed on the compromise has been set aside. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the basic year Mahadeo, Mahabir, Dassu and Nanku were recorded as tenure-holder of the disputed land. One Mst. Sirtaji had claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land. Her claim was accepted by the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority. Thereafter a revision petition was pending before the revisional court. During the pendency of the revision petition it appears that Mst. Sirtaji died and there-after a compromise amongst Mahabir, Dassu and Nanku was arrived at on 29.6.67. It has been alleged that opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition Mohammad Umar applied for setting aside the compromise decree dated 29.6.67 alleging himself as Mahadeo and asserted that the compromise was bad in law. The claim of the alleged Mahadeo was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he was not Mahadeo rather he was Mohammad Umar and he had no right to move the court for setting aside the order dated 29.6.1967. The revisional court has held through the impugned judgment dated 28.1.1980 that Mahadeo is alive and the order dated 29.6.1967 passed on the compromise was set aside. Against the impugned order the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the revisional court has patently erred in recording a finding to effect that Mahadeo is alive and has taken perverse view on the evidence on record and has carved out a new theory about the identity of Mahadeo. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revisional court has appraised the evidence on record and has arrived at a finding of fact that the alleged Mahadeo is really alive and an illegal order recognising the claims of other persons based on an illegal compromise has been set aside, hence it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgment. 5. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties the impugned judgment should not be interfered with so as to bring in an illegal order into existence. 5. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties the impugned judgment should not be interfered with so as to bring in an illegal order into existence. According to him when Mst. Sirtaji was dead no legal compromise could be arrived at amongst the applicants in revision, rather the revision petition itself should have been dismissed. 6. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the impugned judgment and the materials attached with the writ petition and the counter affidavit. To me it appears that the revisional court has gone on imagination and surmise in holding that the alleged Mahadeo is a real person and is alive. In this connection the main controversy whether the alleged Mahadeo is a Hindu or a Mohammadan has been answered by the revisional court in a very imaginary fashion which is difficult to accept and on this ground the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed. 7. As regards the contention on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that an illegal order is likely to be restored, I think that in the circumstances of the present case no legal compromise could be arrived at amongst the applicants in revision petition when the contesting opposite party had already died. For the sake of arguments it may be accepted that at the instance of alleged Mahadeo, no interference could be made with the order dated 29.6.67 recognising the claims of the persons on the basis of a compromise but the revisional court can exercise its sou motu powers to rectify its mistake and pass suitable order in the circumstances of the particular case. The mistake in not recognising the claim of the persons in revision petition in the absence of the real contesting opposite party appears to me wholly illegal and wrong, hence I think it proper to quash the order dated 29.6.67 also in the present case and ask the revisional court to pass suitable orders in the revision petition which becomes pending due to the circumstance that the impugned order dated 28.1.1980, and the order dated 29.6.67 are hereby quashed. 8. 8. It is not necessary to express any further opinion in this case as I have adopted a procedure for quashing the illegal orders passed by the revisional court, hence it is not necessary to deal with the cases cited by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties that this Court should not interfere with the impugned orders with a view to bring in an illegal order and the order passed by the revisional court was a result of the appraisal of evidence hence it needed no interference. I have already indicated that the impugned order was the result of the surmise and carving out a new theory regarding the identity of the alleged Mahadeo, hence the impugned order needs interference by this Court. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 28.1.1980 is hereby quashed. The order dated 29.6.67 recognising the claim of the applicant in revision is also hereby quashed. It would be open to the revisional court to pass suitable and final orders in the revision petition after hearing the interested parties in the case. In the circumstances of the present case there would be no order as to costs.