JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.8.1979 passed by the Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh by which he has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and has maintained the order dated 18.2.1978 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation by which he allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the consolidation officer for deciding it afresh on merits. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the basic year khatauni Ram Dutt son of Lal Bahadur, opposite party No. 3, was recorded as sole tenure holder on Khata No. 84 of village Bhajshiv, Pargana Bihar, District Pratapgarh. An objection was filed under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by which the petitioner Ram Narain claimed to be cotenure holder in the said disputed holding along with the opposite party 3. It appears that this objection was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.11.1976 on the basis of alleged compromise between the petitioner's son and the opposite party No. 3. Against this order an appeal was preferred by opposite party No. 3 on 26.11.1977. In the memo of appeal the date of order passed by the Consolidation Officer against which appeal was filed was mentioned as 15.11.77. This error was, however, got corrected by an amendment application moved by the opposite party no. 3 as this appeal was directed against the aforesaid order dated 15.11.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer. It was asserted in the appeal that the appellant Ram Dutt had n t entered into any compromise with the petitioner Ram Narain in respect of the holding in dispute, Khata No. 84. It was asserted by him that he is sole tenure holder of disputed holding and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged compromise is illegal and without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside It was averred in the memo of appeal that the appellant resides at Allahabad in connection with his service and his two minor sons and 'PardahNashin' wife reside in the village. It was farther alleged that the petitionerrespondent had fraudulently got the alleged compromise made with his son and obtained illegal order in his favour. It was farther alleged that the petitionerrespondent had fraudulently got the alleged compromise made with his son and obtained illegal order in his favour. It was further asserted that the appellant had not entered into any compromise with the petitioner nor his son Devi Prasad had any authority to enter into a compromise with the petitioner in respect of the holding in dispute. This appeal was contested by the petitioner and it was asserted on his behalf that the opposite party No. 3 Ram Dutt was well aware at 3at the aforesaid order dared 15.11. 1976 passed by the consolidation officer as he had himself filed objection on 10.2.1977 in respect of land of another Khata No. 233 which was exclusively recorded in the name of the petitioner. In that objection it is said to have been mentioned by the objector that since name of the petitioner has been recorded as cotenure holder in Khata No. 84, and, as such, the objector's (Ram Dutt) name be ordered to be recorded as cotenure holder over Khata No. 233 along with the petitioner. It was, thus, urged on behalf of the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation that the petitioner was well aware about the order dated 15.11.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer by which name of petitioner was recorded as cotenure holder on Khata No. 84 as he had referred this fact in his aforesaid objection. The opposite party No. 3 Ram Dutt denied said allegation and filed affidavit before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation stating that he had not fried any objection in respect of Khata No. 233 nor he had filed any affidavit along with said objection admitted in the knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 15.11.76 nor he had admitted its validity or claimed share on its basis in Khata No. 233. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing parties had, vide order dated 18.2.1978, allowed the appeal filed by Ram Dutt and by setting aside the order dated 15.11.1975 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merits. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner preferred revision which too was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.1979 by the Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation. These orders have been challenged in this writ petition, 3. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner preferred revision which too was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.1979 by the Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation. These orders have been challenged in this writ petition, 3. Learned counsel for the .petitioner urged that since oppositeparty No. 3 Ram Dutt was well aware about the order dated 15.11.1976 and he had rather accepted the validity of. the same as he had claimed share on itsbasis in the petitioner's holding Khata No. 233, and, as, such, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation erred in .allowing appeal filed by Ram, Dutt against said order. I not find any merit in this contention. 4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation has given cogent reasons for setting aside the Order dated 15.11.1976 which was said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officei1 on the alleged compromise between the petitioner and Devi Prasad, son of Ram Dutt. The consolidation officer has apparently acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in deciding the case in respect of Khata N6. 84 on the basis of alleged compromise between the petitioner and Devi Prasad son of Rum Dutt. Since, admittedly, Ram Dutt had not entered into any compromise in respect of land, and, as such, the Consolidation Officer could not pass the order dated 15.11.1976 on the basis of alleged compromise between the petitioner and Devi Prasad. It is not disputed that Devi Prasad was not authorised by his father Ram Dutt (Opposite Party No. 3) to enter into compromise with the petitioner on his behalf of respect of the land of khata no.84, which was recorded exclusively in his name in the basic year khatauni. 5. It is well settled that no one can act on behalf of some other person inspite of close relationship with him unless duly authorised by him in that, behalf. Thus, even a son cannot act on behalf of his father nor he can enter into a compromise in respect of the property recorded in the name of his father unless duly authorised to do so. The Consolidation Officer had, therefore, acted illegally in passing the impugned order dated 15.11.1976 on the basis of alleged compromise between the petitioner and Devi Prasad son of Ram Dutt. Thus, this order has been rightly set aside by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 18.2.1978 and there is no error in it. The Consolidation Officer had, therefore, acted illegally in passing the impugned order dated 15.11.1976 on the basis of alleged compromise between the petitioner and Devi Prasad son of Ram Dutt. Thus, this order has been rightly set aside by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 18.2.1978 and there is no error in it. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also committed no error in confirming it. The parties will now have full opportunity of contesting the case on merits in respect of the land in dispute. 6. In view of the above, I find that there is no error of fact, law or jurisdiction in the impugned orders, so as to callfor interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. Since Ram Dutt died during the pendency of the writ petition, and, as such the Consolidation Officer after making substitution of the .heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenure holder Ram Dutt will now proceed to decide the case expeditiously. 8. No order as to costs. (Petition dismissed)