Judgment K.N. Misra, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-5-1985 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation by which he has allowed the revision filed by opposite party No. 3 Kedar Nath and has set aside the order dated 30th May, 1984 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who had allowed the appeal of the petitioners and had remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh on merits after setting aside order dated 16-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the alleged conciliation proceedings. 2. BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the dispute in the present case relates to plot No. 100, 101, 102, 103 and 133 which were recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the names of the petitioners and Ram Autar. Ram Autar is said to have died some times in the year 1977 and the petitioners are said to be his legal heirs and representatives. It has been averred in the writ petition that opposite party No. 3 Kedar Nath did not file any objection under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nor any dispute was noted during Partal made by the consolidation staff in respect of aforesaid plots and this dispute was also not noted in CH Form No. 5 as well. The opposite party No. 3 however, asserted to be in possession over aforesaid plots for the last 20 years and had, thus, prefected Sirdari rights over said plots. It is stated that before the Assistant Consolidation Officer the parties had entered into compromise and in the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer an order was passed on 16-10-1976 by him directing the name of opposite party No. 3 to be recorded as Sirdar-tenant on the aforesaid plots after expunging the name of the recorded tenure holders. An appeal was filed by the petitioners against said order on 12-1-1983. It was asserted in appeal that the compromise was fictitious and manipulated one and it deserved to be set aside as it was not made in accordance with Rule 25-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It was also asserted that all the parties had not signed the said compromise and it was fictitiously made. It was asserted in appeal that the compromise was fictitious and manipulated one and it deserved to be set aside as it was not made in accordance with Rule 25-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It was also asserted that all the parties had not signed the said compromise and it was fictitiously made. An application for condonation of dealy was also moved by the appellants stating that they were not aware about the said order as compromise was not entered into by them. The said application for condonation of delay was opposed by Kedar Nath and it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed being time barred and that it also lacks merits. After hearing the parties the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal vide order dated 30th May, 1984 and condoned the delay after setting aside aforesaid order dated 16-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the case was remanded to the court of Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merits. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party No. 3 had preferred revision which has been allowed by the Joint Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8-5-1985. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by which he had condoned delay in filing the appeal and had remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merits. It was further urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation has wrongly upheld the claim of opposite party No. 3 regarding his being Sirdar-Tenant of the disputed holding, which was claimed by him on the basis of alleged adverse possession. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the learned Joint Director of Consolidation has wrongly upheld the claim of opposite party No. 3 by saying that since during Partal he was found to be in possession and it was claimed that he is in possession over the land for the last 20 years, and, as such, the absence of entry in the Khasra is not very material. LEARNED counsel urged that this observation of the Joint Director of Consolidation is perse wrong and is not legally sustainable on the facts as well as in law. LEARNED counsel urged that this observation of the Joint Director of Consolidation is perse wrong and is not legally sustainable on the facts as well as in law. LEARNED counsel had further urged that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, condoned the delay in fifing the appeal and has recorded good reasons for setting aside the alleged conciliation proceedings which were altogether fictitious and were got manipulated. It was pointed out that the Joint Director of Consolidation has passed his order on conjectures and surmises while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged compromise. 4. IN reply learned counsel for the opposite party urged that the Joint Director of Consolidation has assigned good reasons for not condoning the inordinate delay of 4 1/2 years in filing appeal. It was further urged that the parties had entered into compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and, thus, the order dated 16-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer deserved to be maintained and it has been rightly maintained by the Joint Director of Consolidation. I have considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation and also the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 5. SO far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned I find that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has given good reasons for condoning the delay in filing appeal although there was a delay of 4 1/2 years in presenting the appeal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut, 1984 RD 382 that the order condoning delay passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities could not be lightly interfered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut, 1984 RD 382 that the order condoning delay passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities could not be lightly interfered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act. It was observed :- "Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and the proposition is well settled that when order has been made under section 5, Limitation Act by the lower court in the exercise of its discretion allowing or refusing an application to extend time, it cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the lower court has acted with material irregularity or contrary to law or has come to that conclusion on no evidence. We are aware that the powers of the Deputy Director under Section 48 of the Act are wider than those mentioned in Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. Even, so, the Director cannot lightly interfere with the discretion of Consolidation Officer, unless the order sought to be revised is clearly erroneous or is likely to cause gross miscarriage of justice. Such was not the case here." In Prem Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1983 (1) LCD 118 it was observed :- "It is well settled that liberal view be taken in condoning delay where the party is not guilty of lack of bona fides and unexplained laches on its part. During consolidation operations title of the parties in respect of land in question has to be finally determined and the matter with regard to title in respect of land in dispute cannot be litigated after close of consolidation operations. In this view of the matter I do not find any error that has been committed in condoning the delay by opposite parties No. 1 and 2." 6. IN view of the above I find that the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation condoning the delay could not be interfered so lightly by the Joint Director of Consolidation especially when the alleged compromise was challenged by the petitioners asserting that no such compromise had taken place and it was fictitiously prepared. IN view of the above I find that the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation condoning the delay could not be interfered so lightly by the Joint Director of Consolidation especially when the alleged compromise was challenged by the petitioners asserting that no such compromise had taken place and it was fictitiously prepared. Learned Joint Director of Consolidation has also observed that the compromise was not signed by Kedar Nath, but it was signed by his wife. He had observed that since Kedar Nath has received his share in the land in dispute and the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not adverse to his interest, and, as such, the non-signing of compromise by Kedar Nath was mere an error of technical nature and would not vitiate the compromise which does not suffer from any factual error nor it can be said to be against the provisions of law. I am unable to agree with this observation of the learned Joint Director of Consolidation. It is well settled that the Assistant Consolidation Officer in exercise of jurisdiction can decide a case in conciliation proceedings between the concerned parties. But where all the recorded tenure holders have not entered into conciliation, the Assistant Consolidation Officer can not exercise jurisdiction in deciding the case in exercise of powers under Section 9-A (1) of the Act. The parties on their arriving at a settlement have to sign the reconciliation proceedings themselves. It can also be signed on their behalf by an authorised agent duly authorised in that behalf. But if a person, who is not duly authorised by the tenure holder to enter into and sign the compromise on his behalf, then the compromise arrived at and signed by him would not be said to have been validly made in the conciliation proceedings. In the present case there is nothing on record to indicate that Kedar Nath had, by executing any legal document, authorised his wife to arrive at and sign the compromise on his behalf. She could not, therefore, endorse and sign the compromise merely being his wife. Any close relation, even a wife or son, could not validly act as an agent for and on his behalf unless duly authorised in that behalf. She could not, therefore, endorse and sign the compromise merely being his wife. Any close relation, even a wife or son, could not validly act as an agent for and on his behalf unless duly authorised in that behalf. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, therefore could not exercise jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 16-10-1976 as Kedar Nath had not signed the compromise and it was signed by his wife Smt. Dhan Pati, who was not duly authorised by Kedar Nath to enter into compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceedings. 7. THUS, in view of the above, I find that the alleged compromise and the order passed on its basis dated 16-10-1976 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer could not be sustained being without jurisdiction and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rightly set aside it. The Joint Director of Consolidation has, thus, fell in error in interfering with the order. 8. IT may also be mentioned before parting with the case that the Joint Director of Consolidation further fell in error in expressing opinion about the merit of the claim of opposite party No. 3 which is said to be based on the plea of alleged adverse possession over the land to. dispute. Since the case is being remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it on merits afresh, and, as such, I do not want to express any opinion about the merit of the claim of the parties. IT would suffice to say that the Consolidation Officer would decide the case without being influenced and without taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Joint Director of Consolidation about the merits of the claim of the parties. He will decide the case of the parties after taking evidence which they may like to produce in support of their respective case. Thus, in view of the above I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 8-5-1985 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation contained in Annexure 3 deserves to be quashed and it is quashed accordingly. 9. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 8-5-1985 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation (Annexure No. 3) is hereby quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the case afresh on merits after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 8-5-1985 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation (Annexure No. 3) is hereby quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the case afresh on merits after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is expected that the Consolidation Officer will decide the case expeditiously. 10. NO order as to costs.