JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition has been preferred by Chhavi Nath, Laldhar, and Jawahir all real brothers and sons of Late Raja Ram and petitioner No. 4 - Smt. Piyari Devi, widow of Jagdhar, who was also the real brother of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) primarily on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely over looked the factum of the order having been passed on 17.4.1996 under an invalid compromise and further that the Consolidation Officer had proceeded to pass the order in a hurried manner when he was due to retire on 31.7.1996. It has been further urged that the said order was ante dated and the manipulation was set right by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal vide order dated 26.3.1997. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, without considering the aforesaid facts in correct perspective, has reversed the order on erroneous assumptions of law and fact. 3. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the dispute which pertains to 5 plots of Khata, No. 162, were recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioner or their predecessors-in-interest. The contesting respondents or their predecessors-in-interest were recorded as class 9 tenure-holders and, as such, 2 sets of objections were filed; one on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to expunge the name of the contesting respondents and the other on behalf of the contesting respondents to declare them as Bhumidhars in place of the petitioners. The preclude to this objection, as is evident on record, indicates that earlier a dispute had been raised in respect of the said claim of the respondent on the basis of adverse possession, in respect whereof a judgment was passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Varanasi, on 17.4.1973. The aforesaid judgment, finds mention in the impugned order as well, and it has been also made the basis of finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer to the effect, that the same would operate as res-judicata and, therefore, the petitioners would be estopped from raising any objections in respect of their title on the plots in question. 4. The aforesaid judgment, finds mention in the impugned order as well, and it has been also made the basis of finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer to the effect, that the same would operate as res-judicata and, therefore, the petitioners would be estopped from raising any objections in respect of their title on the plots in question. 4. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and alongwith the supplementary-affidavit, an order passed in Second Appeal by the Board of Revenue dated 18.12.1991 has been annexed to demonstrate that the said order dated 17.4.1973 had not become final and that the same had been carried in appeal, and then in Second Appeal by Raja Ram, the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and father-in-law of petitioner No. 4. During the pendency of the said Second Appeal before the Board, consolidation operations intervened and a Notification was brought to the notice of the Board, whereupon the said proceedings were abated under Section 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1953. Thereafter, the objections were filed and contested on merits with regard to which the Consolidation Officer proceeded to hear the parties. 5. The dispute appears to have been diluted in between inasmuch as, some of the other recorded Khata-hoIders entered into a compromise with the contesting respondents acquiescing to their claim of having perfected their right, title and interest by way of adverse possession. One such compromise was brought on record on 17.9.1994 and the other compromise by the petitioner No. 3-Jawahir was brought on record on 17.4.1996. The matter proceeded thereafter and 11.7.1996 was fixed as the date for cross-examination of one of the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioners namely Bachanu; the order-sheet dated 11.7.1996 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Further, the order-sheet dated 16.7.1996 indicates that the parties were present and the statement of the witnesses was recorded whereafter arguments were heard. The order-sheet further indicates that 20.7.1996 was fixed for orders. 6. The dispute appears to have emanated on account of the aforesaid recital contained in the order-sheet inasmuch as the case of the petitioners is, that the date fixed on 16.7.1996, was 16.8.1996 inasmuch as the Presiding Officer was not present on that date. The order-sheet further indicates that 20.7.1996 was fixed for orders. 6. The dispute appears to have emanated on account of the aforesaid recital contained in the order-sheet inasmuch as the case of the petitioners is, that the date fixed on 16.7.1996, was 16.8.1996 inasmuch as the Presiding Officer was not present on that date. It has further been alleged that the order-sheet so prepared is incorrect and the order dated 20.7.1996 was recorded later on in an ante dated manner. For this, the petitioner has relied on a question answer; a copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the writ petition dated 24.8.1996 wherein the question asked is as to whether any general date was fixed in the matter on 16.7.1996 or not. The answer, which has been given by the Reader of the Court of the Consolidation Officer, is to the effect that the general date fixed in all cases on 16.7.1996 was 16.8.1996. Thereafter, it appears that the order dated 20.7.1996 saw the light of the day, and the said order is founded on the strength of a compromise which is stated to have been entered into the parties in order to bring about an end to the dispute. A copy of the said order dated 20.7.1996 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said order indicates that Chhavi Nath and his brother Laldhar had not entered into any compromise. Accordingly, it appears that Chhavi Nath and his brother Laldhar and Jagdhar preferred an appeal against the said order dated 20.7.1996. At this stage, it is worth noting that one of the brothers Jawahir had already acquiesced to the order of the Consolidation Officer and had already compromised with the respondents. Jawahir did not file any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. This fact has to be necessarily stated inasmuch as the petitioner No. 3 before this Court is Jawahir himself. Jawahir did not file any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. This fact has to be necessarily stated inasmuch as the petitioner No. 3 before this Court is Jawahir himself. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position, there is no right or any grievance of the petitioner No. 3 surviving, which has to be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 3 stands dismissed and it is further provided that the right title and interest of the contesting respondent as against Jawahir stood finalized in terms of the compromise as entered into between the parties. 7. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that petitioner No. 4-Smt. Piyari Devi, during the pendency of the writ petition, moved an application before this Court clearly abandoning her claim and further stating that she does not want to contest the writ petition. This order has already been passed on an application through Sri. B.K. Pandey, Advocate. It is, thereafter, that Smt. Piyari Devi was allowed to be transposed as Respondent No. 21 and she has been heard through her counsel Sri B.K. Pandey. 8. The appeal proceeded and it was allowed on 26.3.1997 and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside with a direction that the matter shall be heard again in the light of the observations made therein. The contesting respondent preferred a revision and it is the said revision which has now been allowed under the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 which has been put to challenge. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition now survives only in respect of Chhavi Nath and Laldhar inasmuch as even Jagdhar, who was an appellant before the Settlement Officer Consolidation has given up his claim. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is to the effect that they have not put their signatures on the compromise, which has been made the basis of the dispute. Secondly the reliance placed on the judgment dated 17.4.1973 of the Addl. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is to the effect that they have not put their signatures on the compromise, which has been made the basis of the dispute. Secondly the reliance placed on the judgment dated 17.4.1973 of the Addl. Commissioner also is an erroneous assumption in law inasmuch as against the said order, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners have preferred an appeal and then a second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the matter was abated by the Board of Revenue when the consolidation operations intervened. In view of this, it is urged that the aforesaid judgment would not bind the petitioners nor would it operate as any bar or estoppel. It is further submitted that merely because the other co-sharers have compromised the matter, the same would not have any binding effect on the petitioners and further the manner in which the Consolidation Officer has fraudulently preponed the date and decided the matter clearly indicates that the entire proceedings were sought to be manipulated in favour of the respondents at the instance of the Consolidation Officer, who was to retire on 31.7.1996. 10. Learned counsel for all the contesting respondents, Sri Anil Bhushan, Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava and Sri A.N. Tripathi have supported the impugned order and have urged that as a matter of fact all the contesting parties have virtually compromised the matter and that the petitioners, for unjustifiable gains, have kept the matter alive even though the contesting respondents have perfected their title over the land and are in physical possession over the same. It is further contended that these facts can easily be visualised from records and further, the compromise was well within their knowledge and they virtually tried to raise the dispute again by getting the entire issues re-opened. It has further been submitted that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has done substantial justice between the parties and in view of the findings recorded therein, it is more than certain that the contesting respondents have perfected their right, title and interest by way of adverse possession and that their entry under clause 9 has rightly been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is unassailable on any grounds as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the order impugned. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the order impugned. 11. With the consent of the parties, the matter is now sought to be disposed of under the Rules of the Court as no further Affidavits are required to be filed. 12. Having perused the records and the Affidavits exchanged between the parties, it is now an admitted position that the petitioners Chhavi Nath and Laldhar were not signatories to the compromise which has been made the basis for deciding the matter by the Consolidation Officer. However, the compromise has been entered into and has now been acquiesced to by the other co-sharers who have signed the said compromise. Further, it is evident that the question answer which has been filed by the petitioners before this Court wherein the Reader of the Court of the Consolidation Officer has stated that a general date had been fixed for 16.8.2008. The said document could not be successfully dislodged by any of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not their case that the said document is a forged document or the information tendered therein is against the record. No other evidence has been filed to contradict the same except the order-sheet dated 11.7.1996, 16.7.1996 and 20.7.1996. It has also not been disputed that the Consolidation Officer, who passed the order was due to retire on 31.7.1996. The aforesaid facts taken cumulatively, therefore, raise a clear doubt and suspicion about the finality of the proceedings against the petitioners. It is undisputed that the witnesses had been produced and the statement of Bachanu was being recorded. It is not understood as to how the Consolidation Officer proceeded to finalise the matter when according to the order of Consolidation Officer himself, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not signatories to the compromise. The factum of compromise once having not been accepted by the Consolidation Officer himself insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it was not open to the Consolidation Officer to have concluded the proceedings as against the petitioners. They had to be given an opportunity to conclude the evidence and to proceed further with their arguments in the matter. The compromise entered into by the other co-sharers, therefore, was neither binding nor final so as to conclude the proceedings as against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. They had to be given an opportunity to conclude the evidence and to proceed further with their arguments in the matter. The compromise entered into by the other co-sharers, therefore, was neither binding nor final so as to conclude the proceedings as against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, therefore, was perfectly justified in allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the Consolidation Officer in order to allow the matter to be heard afresh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on this issue, fell into error by presuming that the compromise has been entered into by all parties. Further, the question of res-judicata and estoppel also appears to have been erroneously construed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation inasmuch as, the fact that the proceeding had travelled up to the Board of Revenue has not been disputed before this Court by the contesting respondents. It appears that the aforesaid finding might have been arrived at as the document pertaining to the abatement of the proceeding had not been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, the position in law remains and even on facts, which has not been disputed, that the proceedings had abated before the Board of Revenue. In view of this, the finding that the proceedings operated as res-judicata and created an estoppel is erroneous in law. However, these findings so far as the other contesting parties, who have already entered into a compromise are no longer relevant as they have already acquiesced to the rights of the contesting respondents and have admitted their claim. The question as to whether the compromise have been entered into or not need not been gone into any further by this Court inasmuch as all the parties, who have entered into a compromise, have not disputed the same. It is noteworthy that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who admittedly had not signed the compromise, have approached this Court. The question, therefore, as to whether the compromise had been entered into or not by them was absolutely irrelevant for the purposes of Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was only to consider as to whether the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been denied a fair opportunity of contest before the Consolidation Officer or not. 13. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the order impugned dated 28.11.2008 insofar as it concerns the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been denied a fair opportunity of contest before the Consolidation Officer or not. 13. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the order impugned dated 28.11.2008 insofar as it concerns the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only, is set aside. The matter shall now stand remitted to the Consolidation Officer, who shall proceed to consider the claim of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only in the light of observations made herein above. The Consolidation Officer shall proceed from the stage of the evidence of Bachanu onwards and thereafter proceed to conclude and record his findings as expeditiously as possible through an appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within 6 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 14. It is made clear that so far as the other contesting parties are concerned, their rights as against the aforesaid claim stands sealed and the Consolidation Officer shall only consider the claim of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. ————