JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad dated 22-4-74. 2. It appears that the contesting opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 are co-sharers of the disputed land. Half share was claimed by the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 and half share was claimed by opposite party nos. 6. The petitioner had claimed sirdari right over the half share belonging to opposite parties nos. 3 to 5. The claim of the petitioner was accepted by the contesting opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 and on that basis the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had given judgment for the petitioner, but in revision the petitioner has lost and aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. It is note-worthy that the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 have again filed compromise in this Court, and want that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be quashed and their claim should be decided in terms of the compromise. It is well-known that compromise is not ordinarily accepted in the writ petition, hence the compromise cannot be given effect to by this Court in writ jurisdiction, and the application is therefore, rejected. 4. As regards on merits I find that the revisional court has allowed the revision filed by the contesting opposite parties only on the ground that Ram Pyarey was not signatory to the compromise and no valid compromise could be arrived at without the consent of Ram Pyarey. Therefore, the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the compromise before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) the contesting opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 of the present writ petition have admitted that the petitioner was in possession over their half share for more than 12 years, hence they would be bound by their admission contained in the compromise and Ram Pyarey, the other co-sharer, had only half share in the disputed land. In that view at the instance of Ram Pyarey the judgment of the Settlement Officer (C) would not have been set aside by the revisional court. The revisional court should have paid due heed to the admission of contesting opposite parties nos. 3 to 5. In that view at the instance of Ram Pyarey the judgment of the Settlement Officer (C) would not have been set aside by the revisional court. The revisional court should have paid due heed to the admission of contesting opposite parties nos. 3 to 5. As the revisional court has failed to consider the admission of opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, its judgment suffer from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. 5. It is also noteworthy that if the petitioner had been in possession over half area of the disputed land for more than 12 years as admitted by the other co-sharers, and when there is no evidence that the possession of the petitioner was with the consent of Ram Pyarey, the petitioner really acquired sirdari right in the area in his occupation. This aspect of the matter has escaped notice of the revisional court, hence its judgment deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 22-4-74 contained in Annexure 4' is hereby quashed. There would be no order as to costs.