JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - These two analogous writ petitions involve similar questions of law and fact, therefore they are being decided by a common judgment. 2. It appears some compromise was arrived at between the parties and on the basis of compromise Consolidation Officer passed orders dated 16-3-1983 and 3- 12-1983. These orders were challenged and revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of consolidation condoned the delay in filing revisions and allowed the revisions by the impugned order dated 12-4-1991. Against the order dated 12-4-1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, these two writ petitions have been filed. The effect of the impugned order is that the compromise has been maintained. 3. Mr. Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the compromise was forged and illegal and the same was challenged by means of restoration application and revisions but Assistant Director of Consolidation rejected the objections filed against the compromise merely on the ground that no evidence was led whereas the fact is that no opportunity was given to lead the evidence. Reliance was placed on Suraj Dev v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1982 Alld. 23 and Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, AIR 1958 SC 394 . 4. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that compromise cannot be challenged by means of restoration application or revision, it can be challenged only by filing regular suit. It was further urged that sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in support of the objections was given to the petitioners but they did not file the same. Reliance was placed on Munshi Singh v. Director of Consolidation, 1966 RD 147. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that at this stage, it would not be proper to express any opinion about the validity or otherwise of the compromise. In view of Division Bench decision in Munshi Singh v. Director of Consolidation, 1966 RD 147 (supra) remedy to challenge compromise was by way of regular suit. So far as the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned in Suraj Dev v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1982 Alld. 23 it has been held that even a stranger can challenge the compromise and being regular suit if the compromise is forged. So far as the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned in Suraj Dev v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1982 Alld. 23 it has been held that even a stranger can challenge the compromise and being regular suit if the compromise is forged. Similarly in Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, it has been field that even assignee can file appeal if same could have been filed by the assignor. The principle laid down is that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the compromise by filing a regular suit. 6. In view of the premises aforesaid, I am of the view that petitioners may challenge the compromise by filing a regular suit. No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made out, consequently writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order dated 25-4-1991 is discharged.