JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of Consolidation proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under ; The dispute is in relation to Khata no. 57, situate in village Belgari, pargana Bansi East, Tahsil Bansi, district Basti. In the basic year, the names of the petitioners Mohid and Indrish and respondent nos. 4 to 17 were recorded as sirdars. On 21st March, 1970, the Assistant Consolidation Officer decided the dispute in relation to the said Khata in terms of the compromise. Against the order dated 21st March, 1970, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 29th March, 1971. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31st March, 1971, dismissed the revision. The petitioners, aggrieved by the said decision, have filed the present petition in this court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners did not sign the compromise, the compromise was wholly invalid, in law, and the entire proceedings were contrary to Rule 25-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and as such, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and - the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in not setting aside the said compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, in reply has urged that though it is a fact that the petitioners had not signed the compromise by inadvertance, but, they were in fact, present at the time of the compromise and that further in pursuance of the compromise, the petitioners had also moved an application for expunging the names of the respondents from the records of village Belgari to complete effectuate the terms of the compromise and, consequently, it was urged that the compromise did take place and there was no violation of Rule 25-A as urged by the petitioners. The facts, which emerge from the petition, are that it is, no doubt, true that the petitioners Mohid and Indrish did not sign the alleged compromise. The facts, which emerge from the petition, are that it is, no doubt, true that the petitioners Mohid and Indrish did not sign the alleged compromise. It is, however, clear that on 18th October, 1970, an application was moved before the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been filed as Annexure 'A-3' to the counter affidavit. From this application, it is clear that the application was also moved by both the petitioners along with the two other brothers of theirs. In this application, it has been categorically stated that a compromise had taken place in respect of the plots in dispute and that the application was made in pursuance of the said compromise so that the names of the applicants may be solely recorded in respect of 1 Bigha of land in village Belgari, which was in terms of the compromise. 5. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been further stated that the contesting opposite parties did not oppose this application. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has also stated before me that even now they are prepared to abide by the terms of the compromise and that the petitioners, with an ulterior motive, got their own application dismissed in order to challenge the compromise in question. These allegations, made in para 9 of the counter affidavit, have not been denied, as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed, although a copy of this counter affidavit was given to the learned counsel for the petitioners as far back as in the year 1975. In the circumstances, it is apparent that a compromise had taken place between the parties. The contesting opposite parties are prepared to abide by the terms of the compromise. The learned counsel has further stated that the contesting respondents have no objection to the grant of the application moved on 18th October, 1970, which had been made in furtherance of the compromise entered into between the parties. The finding recorded by the courts below that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties cannot, consequently, be said to be vitiated in any manner in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon Hori Lal v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, 1982 RD 78. The finding recorded by the courts below that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties cannot, consequently, be said to be vitiated in any manner in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon Hori Lal v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, 1982 RD 78. Particular reliance has been placed on the opinion taken by this court that Rule 25-A is mandatory and its noncompliance will vitiate the proceedings and the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in utter disregard to the said provision will be per se illegal without jurisdiction. 6. In the aforementioned case, the only question that was up for consideration was whether the presence of the two members of the Consolidation Committee and the putting of their signatures in the proceedings was mandatory or not. It was held by this court that the presence of the two members of the Consolidation Committee was mandatory. It was not held in that case even if it has been otherwise proved that the compromise had been arrived at, the mere irregularity of not signing the compromise could completely nullify the entire proceedings, particularly when the allegation, that the persons, who are alleged to have not signed the document, were, in fact, present at the time of the compromise. It often happens that the persons, who are parties to the compromise, may not be present, but they may be represented through other persons. There is no provision in Rule 25-A that before the Assistant Consolidation Officer decides the dispute on the basis of consolidation, there must be written compromise signed by the parties. The principle laid down in Hori Lal v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (supra) does not apply in the instant case. There is, in fact, no violation of Rule 25-A. 7. In any case, as I have already held, in the facts and circumstances of this case, where it has been found by all the three courts that, in fact, the compromise had been arrived at between the parties, I do not think it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be, however, open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the authorities concerned for getting their names entered in village Belgari in terms of the compromise. 8. It will be, however, open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the authorities concerned for getting their names entered in village Belgari in terms of the compromise. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.