JUDGMENT A.P. Mishra, J. - I have perused the writ petition and also read the counter affidavit along with the impugned order. The present writ petition is directed as against the orders dated 4-9-1971 and 28th September, 1908 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively The respondent no. 1 dismissed the revision as not maintainable while respondent no. 2 decided the case on merit. 2. The present writ petition arises out of the consolidation proceedings during the course of which the petitioner filed two applications : one under Section 9 (2) and the other under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for correction of the record and revision of the annual register claiming half share with opposite party no. 5. The consolidation officer by means of two separate order dismissed the said objection against which two separate appeals have been filed in which the settlement officer (Consolidation) by means of common judgment modified the order passed by the consolidation officer. However, the petitioner being aggrieved, even as against that preferred two second appeal which were dismissed on technical grounds as no formal order was filed within limitation. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition challenging those orders and this court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the petitioner's appeal on merit. After remand the Deputy Director of consolidation against after considering the matter dismissed the appeal even on merit. Aggrieved as against that the petitioner preferred two separate revisions before the Director of Consolidation who also dismissed the said two revisions holdings that the revision does not lie. The petitioner being aggrieved as against last two orders referred to above challenged them by means of the present writ petition. 3. Petitioner's case is that his name also be recorded in the basis year of Khetauni for the year 1366 to 1368 F with Mahendra who was then minor was recorded as tenant in Khata nos. 973 and 136 in village Ranehara, Pargana and Tehsil Dhhata and on the publication of C.H. Form 5 he filed objection in the court of consolidation officer claiming to be co-tenure holder of the land in dispute. It is relevant to mention here that a Civil suit (Suit no. 973 and 136 in village Ranehara, Pargana and Tehsil Dhhata and on the publication of C.H. Form 5 he filed objection in the court of consolidation officer claiming to be co-tenure holder of the land in dispute. It is relevant to mention here that a Civil suit (Suit no. 539 of 1955) was already filed in the court of Munsif Mathura between the petitioner Ghanshyam father of contesting opposite party Mahendra where the right of the petitioner as a co-tenant had been recognised in a compromise arrived at in the aforementioned suit. When the said compromise was filed before the settlement officer (Consolidation) in appeal he modified the order passed by the consolidation officer in terms of the compromise. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in the second appeal respondent, no. 2 wrongly included Khata nos 973 and 136 for the purpose of deciding the rights of the parties in the consolidation proceedings on the basis of the compromise filed in the Civil Suit as the Civil Suit was not for these two khatas, therefore, the reliance placed on the compromise was not justified both, on facts and law, 5. It is not in dispute that the compromise was filed in the said suit in which under clause (3) it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiff-appellant (Petitioner) had no concern left with any other khatas standing in the name of Ghanshyam. The present contesting respondent is son of Ghanshyam. Even if the present disputed plots did not form part of the aforesaid suit, since the compromise included all other Khatas, it cannot be urged that the suit being confined to other plots, is not binding on the parties, It is not the question of res judicata. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent is that the compromise of the earlier suit is binding on him as there is stipulation in the compromise of the earlier suit that the petitioner will have no concern with any other Khatas standing in the name of Ghanshyam, the father of respondent no. 5. Therefore, a party cannot take benefit of half of the compromise of the suit and deny another half of the same The principle of compromise is settled and the same is binding in all terms. Every clause and word put in therein. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by respondent no. 5. Therefore, a party cannot take benefit of half of the compromise of the suit and deny another half of the same The principle of compromise is settled and the same is binding in all terms. Every clause and word put in therein. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by respondent no. 2 who has taken into consideration all these facts and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the same and it does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble court The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent, no. 1 in which it has been held that the revision was not maintainable. I have perused the said judgment. The respondent no. 1 has very rightly, held and relied on the decision of this court that no revision lie and, therefore, the judgment of respondent no. 1 is justified and the same does not call for any interference by this court. 6. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed with costs.