( 1 ) HEARD Sri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Rudheshwari Prasad appearing for contesting respondents. ( 2 ) FACTS, giving rise to the dispute, are as under. Suit filed by respondent no. 3 under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, being suit no. 143 of 1974, seeking declaration of Bhumidhari rights over the plots in dispute was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 29. 3. 1975 on the basis of alleged compromise between the parties. Having obtained knowledge of the said decree, an application was filed by petitioner for setting aside the same on the ground that no notice or summons was ever issued or served upon him and he never entered into compromise and the compromise filed in the proceedings was fraudulent and decree has been obtained by fraud. Sub Divisional Officer, Ballia vide order dated 5. 7. 1976 allowed the application and set aside the decree which was challenged in revision. Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi vide order dated 10. 3. 1977 prepared a reference and forwarded to the Board of Revenue with recommendation for allowing the revision on the ground that Sub Divisional Officer, Ballia had recalled the compromise decree without calling for an expert report to verify the genuineness of the alleged thumb impression on the compromise. Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 9. 12. 1980 accepted the reference and allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the trial court to obtain an expert report on the genuineness of the thumb impression of petitioner on the compromise and thereafter decide the restoration application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court. ( 3 ) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was hardly any necessity to remand the case back for expert evidence in as much as compromise was illegal and was liable to be set aside on the ground that Gaon Sabha and State which are necessary part in the suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not signatory to the compromise. ( 4 ) IN reply, it has been submitted that Gaon Sabha and State are only statutory parties in suit under Section 229-B and there is no necessity for them to sign the compromise and the compromise would not be vitiated on the said count. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) IT is undisputed that the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise in which Gaon Sabha and State were not signatory. ( 7 ) EQUALLY undisputed is the fact that petitioner was recorded Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and the contesting respondents who had filed the suit claiming rights on the basis of possession was totally a stranger. Thus, it was not a case where declaration of already existing tenancy right was being claimed by the plaintiff whose name was not recorded for some reason but it was a case claiming fresh tenancy rights in the land in dispute on the basis of possession. Tenancy rights are regulated by the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and fresh tenancy rights could not be created in favour of a person on the basis of mere compromise without Gaon Sabha and State either conceding or being signatory to the said compromise. In view of the aforesaid, compromise on the basis of which suit filed by respondent no. 3 was decreed, cannot be said to be a lawful and legal compromise. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise when recorded tenure-holder has come up with the case that he was never served with any notice or summons and is denying the compromise, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case back for fresh investigation into genuineness of compromise after 26 years of the filing of suit. It would be in the fitness of thing as well as in the interest of justice that dispute between the parties may be adjudicated on merits. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, impugned orders dated 9. 12. 1980 passed by Board of Revenue and 10. 3. 1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi are hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, impugned orders dated 9. 12. 1980 passed by Board of Revenue and 10. 3. 1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi are hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Trial court is directed to decide the suit between the parties on merits in accordance with law after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned as expeditiously as possible, preferable within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. .