JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's revision against order dated April 17, 1979 passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing revision No. 51/77-78/Mathura against order dated November 5, 1977 passed by S.D.O., Mathura refusing to accept the lots arrived at by compromise and family settlement by the parties on ground that the lots were not in accordance with the requirements of rules 127 to 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. 2. A compromise was filed by the parties on March 25, 1977 and the parties got hereby specific plots allotted to their share. Radharaman one of the parties to the said compromise moved an application on March 31, 1977 for setting aside compromise for March 25, 1977 as it was against rules 131 and 132 and 157 and 158 and the learned trial court set aside the compromise for the lots by order dated November 5, 1977. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It has been argued that rules 131, 132 and 157 and 158 are only directory and are not mandatory and the compromise being family settlement ought to have been accepted and both the courts below acted illegally in setting it aside. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1974 (S.C.) 1069 at p. 1070 and A.I.R. 1976 (S.C.) 807. 5. It has been argued in reply that the said rules are mandatory and are to be followed as far as possible; that the lots arrived at by compromise were against said rules and even valuation was not correct, therefore, the courts below committed no illegality, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 131, 132 and 157 are not mandatory in the strict sense and are directory to some extent but are to be followed as far as possible but it does not mean that they are not to be followed at all. 7. Where the parties make family settlement of their dispute by compromise then if the said rules have not been followed strictly and have been agreed voluntarily by the parties the strict non-observance of the said rules should not be made a ground for not accepting them. Family settlement for ending dispute between the parties may be entered into with variations of shares of the parties etc. Family settlement for ending dispute between the parties may be entered into with variations of shares of the parties etc. and they do not amount to illegal transfer etc. as has been held in A.I.R. 1976 (S.C.) 807 and A.I.R. 1974 (S.C.) 1069, therefore, the courts below wrongly did not honour the compromise and family settlement arrived at by the parties freely which is binding on them and is not liable to be challenged by any party to it who are estopped from doing so, therefore, the courts below acted illegally and beyond jurisdiction in not accepting the compromise and family settlement regarding lots of the parties, therefore, this revision is liable to be allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above, this revision is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the compromise-cum-family settlement regarding lots is accepted and final decree shall be prepared accordingly by complying other rules regarding it.