JUDGMENT Honble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mustakeem holding brief of Sri M.A.Qadeer for the contesting respondents. 2. This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). Dispute relates to khata No. 306 Ka and 306 Kha. In the basic year khata No. 306 Ka was recorded in the name of Ram Sundar father of the petitioner, respondents No. 2 to 5 and Sri Ram and others. Khata No. 306 Kha was recorded in the name of Ram Sundar and respondents No. 2 to 5. The admitted pedigree of the petitioner and contesting respondents is as under : Saran Babu Kalika Bachu Ram Sundar Dukhi (X) Styanarayan Ram Sumer Nihut Jai Ram Ram Murat (Petitioner) (Res. 2) (Res.3) (Res.4) (Res.5) 3. Both the parties filed objection claiming shares in khata in dispute. The claim of respondents No. 2 to 5 was that Ram Sundar father of the petitioner had one-third share in khata No. 306 Kha and one-sixth share in khata 306 Ka whereas the petitioner’s claim was that he is entitled to one-fourth share in khata 306 Kha and half share in khata No. 306 Ka. 4. The answering respondents based their claim on the basis of decree passed in a suit filed by them under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act against the petitioner as well as Sri Ram and others which was decided on 19.11.1965 on the basis of a compromise between the parties according to which the petitioner was given one-third share in khata No. 306 Kha and one-sixth share in katha No. 306 Ka. 5. The decree of the aforesaid suit was filed before the Consolidation Officer which stated that suit is being decided in terms of compromise which shall form part of the decree. The Consolidation Officer after analyzing the compromise found that paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the compromise according to which the petitioner’s share was declared to be one-third in khata No. 306 Kha and one-sixth in khata No. 306 Ka were subsequently added by interpolation. A clear finding has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that compromise initially contained only three paragraphs and thereafter it was written that the compromise is being filed before the Court. After that paragraph 4, 5 and 6 were added. A clear finding has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that compromise initially contained only three paragraphs and thereafter it was written that the compromise is being filed before the Court. After that paragraph 4, 5 and 6 were added. Disbelieving the compromise the Consolidation Officer proceeded to decide the case on merits and allotted half share to the petitioner in Khata No. 306 Ka and one-fourth share in khata No. 306 Kha in accordance with pedigree vide judgment dated 19.7.1974.The contention of the answering respondents that share of Kalika devolved upon their branch was also not accepted by the Consolidation Officer. 6. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 22.7.1976 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents and affirmed the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the answering respondents vide impugned order dated 10.12.1981. 7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the fact that two courts below have held that paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 were subsequently added in the compromise and thus were not part of a decree passed by the Revenue Court wrongly held the same to be binding. 8. In reply, it has been submitted by the decree passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction is binding and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly placed reliance upon the same. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. There can be no doubt about the legal proposition that a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding upon the Consolidation Courts and they cannot go behind the said decree. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different. The suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed in terms of compromise stating that the compromise shall form part of the decree. The two fact finding Courts have held that compromise initially contained only three paragraphs and paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 which contained recital about the share of the petitioner in disputed khata were subsequently added. In view of the said findings the terms of compromise which were subsequently added after passing of the decree cannot be said to be part of the decree. 11. In view of the said findings the terms of compromise which were subsequently added after passing of the decree cannot be said to be part of the decree. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering this aspect of the matter proceeded on the assumption that the decree has binding effect and the same cannot be ignored by the Consolidation Courts. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is erroneous. The terms added in the compromise by interpolation after passing of the decree cannot be a part of the decree and will have no binding effect. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.12.1981 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ————