S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Advocate who appeared for, the respondents. 2. Challenge is to the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, by which revision filed by respondent was allowed and thereafter, the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation by which application for recall filed by petitioner was rejected. 3. For disposal of this petition, mention of facts in brief will suffice. 4. An order of re-conciliation came to be passed which was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority who remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for trial on merits. On filing revision by the respondent, he succeeded and the order being claimed to be ex parte, recall was filed and that was rejected and thus, this petition. 5. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has recorded clear finding that alleged re-conciliation do not bear signature/thumb impression of the petitioner and at the same time, re-conciliation was never recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and was never read to the parties and it was just a compromise filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and on that basis, order was got passed and it is on these findings, appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded. Submission is that Deputy Director, Consolidation without recording any finding and without understanding the distinction between reconciliation and compromise has allowed the revision. 6. In response to the aforesaid, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that if before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, compromise was filed and that has been properly verified, and the order has been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and if that has been maintained by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, then no exception can be taken to it. 7. In view of above, this Court has examined the matter. 8. Before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, no reconciliation was filed, rather a compromise was filed and on that basis, order was passed. Settlement Officer, Consolidation rightly pointed out that on the basis of compromise, dispute cannot be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. There is further finding by the settlement Officer, Consolidation that alleged compromise do not bear signature/thumb impression of the petitioner and other infirmities were pointed out by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Deputy Director, Consolidation has not reversed those finding while allowing revision. There is further finding by the settlement Officer, Consolidation that alleged compromise do not bear signature/thumb impression of the petitioner and other infirmities were pointed out by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Deputy Director, Consolidation has not reversed those finding while allowing revision. If this is accepted then the order passed on the compromise cannot be approved. It is not to be emphasised that after, close of consolidation, claim is barred under section 49 of UPCH Act and therefore, endeavour of the Courts should be to decide the claim of parties on merits. The effect of the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was that parties to get opportunity of placing evidence, hearing and then decision. If the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation is maintained then the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer which is claimed to be ex parte and without any trial will stand maintained. Thus, on these facts, this Court is of the view that by maintaining order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, there will be great prejudice to the petitioner rather if that is set aside, then that will serve ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The Impugned orders of the Deputy Director, Consolidation allowing revision and rejecting recall application are hereby quashed. 10. It is observed that pursuant to the order of appellate authority, now proceeding will be revived by the Consolidation Officer who is to decide claim of parties after giving adequate opportunity to file objection, adduce evidence and hearing. This is all to be done without allowing unwarranted adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of presentation, of a certified copy of this order by either of the sides. Petition Allowed. .