JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17th November, 1990, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur by which the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for determining the shares after hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order was passed on the basis of the compromise in 1975 but no objection was raised by the respondents. It was about after five years that the order passed on basis of the compromise, was challenged. It is not disputed that the notice was not served on respondent no. 2 personally and it was accepted on his behalf by his co-tenure holder. It is also admitted that in compromise Ram Briksha Rai respondent no. 2 was not aparty and he did not sign the name. The case of Ram Briksha Rai before the authorities below was that he was ignorant about the compromise and as the land was joint he could never know about the order passed on basis of compromise and prejudice caused to him by the same. This contention has been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the matter has been remanded. The basic fact that the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was passed on basis of a compromise to which Ram Briksha Rai, respondent no. 2 was not a party, goes to the root of the matter, as it was nullity. The order could not be binding on respondent no. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur has, in the aforesaid circumstances, rightly set aside the order and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding on merits. Now petitioners will have full opportunity to establish their claim and shares. By impugned order their rights have not been closed. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 2. The writ petition has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as cost.