JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and Annexure-10 passed by the Settlement Officer, Saharsa with respect to the claim of the petitioner for correction of entry made in the Revisionai Survey Khatiyan published on 10.1.1986 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. 2. The Revisionai Survey entry shows the name of Kapoor Chand Mukhiya, father of Nathuni Mukhiya as the owner of 25 decimals of land. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased 25 decimals of land vide Annexure-1 from Nathuni Mukhiya with respect to several plots of land. The petitioner being aggrieved by the entry in the revisionai survey khatiyan, filed a case under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent 2nd set and the respondent 3rd set in the present writ application appeared suo motu in the proceedings under Section 106 of the Act, respondent 3rd set claiming 11 decimals of land, whereas respondent 2nd set claiming 3 decimals of land. The claim of the respondent 2nd set is the subject matter of the present dispute. The case under Section 106 of the Act was filed in the year 1986 and the respondent 2nd set and the respondent 3rd set appeared after a great delay in the year 2004 to put forward their claims. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-9, the petitioner was granted 11 decimals of land from the eastern side of Khata No. 89, Khesra No. 1132, whereas 11 decimals of land were granted to the respondent 3rd set from the western side and the respondents 3rd set were granted 3 decimals of land from the extreme eastern side of the plot. It was further observed by the Assistant Settlement Officer that the father of the petitioner had 3 decimals of land running in his name, which was allotted to the petitioners, thereby trying to justify the claim of the petitioner that their grievances were met by the order impugned. The Settlement Officer upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer for the same reasons. 3. The petitioners claims that during the pendency of the revisional application before the Settlement Officer, the petitioner and the respondents 2nd set agreed to compromise the matter with the help of the members of the village panchayat. The Settlement Officer upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer for the same reasons. 3. The petitioners claims that during the pendency of the revisional application before the Settlement Officer, the petitioner and the respondents 2nd set agreed to compromise the matter with the help of the members of the village panchayat. Accordingly, on 12.3.2007, the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondents 2nd set, agreed that the petitioner will transfer 7 dhurs of land to the respondents 2nd set and the respondents 2nd set in turn would give up the claim over 3 decimals of land. The petitioner in accordance with the compromise executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents 2nd set. After the order of the Revisional Court, the respondents 2nd set refused to give up the said 3 decimals of land and has thereby breached the conditions of the compromise. 4. The main argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the names of the intervenors i.e. respondents 2nd set and the respondents 3rd set were not entered in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan with respect to the plots which were in dispute. The remedy for the respondents was to file a suit under Section 106 of the Act, the fact that the Courts have granted them 3 decimals and 11 decimals of land respectively cannot have been done in the manner it has been done in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. The provision of Section 106 of the Act envisages that "a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer at any time within three months from the date of certificate of final publication of the record of rights under sub-section 2 of Section 103 of this Act by presenting a plaint on. a stamp paper for a decision of any dispute regarding any entry which Revenue Officer has made or any omission which the said officer has made from the records". It is obvious that the respondents 2nd set did not file any suit, and as such, their claim could not have been allowed for two reasons. Firstly, because they did not file a suit; and secondly, because their claim was delayed, filed after several years of the publication of the Revisional Survey. It is obvious that the respondents 2nd set did not file any suit, and as such, their claim could not have been allowed for two reasons. Firstly, because they did not file a suit; and secondly, because their claim was delayed, filed after several years of the publication of the Revisional Survey. As per the case of the petitioner, the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer could have rejected the claim made by the petitioner for correction of the revisional survey entry, but the Assistant Settlement Officer could not have held that the lands entered in the name of Kapoor Chand Mukhiya should bo allotted to a third party i.e. the respondents 2nd set. In other words, the Settlement Officer has made out a third case. 5. The case of the respondents 2nd set is that they are the bona fide purchasers of 6 kathas 5 dhurs of land with respect to touzi no. 5333 from Neniawati, daughter of Dhani Chand Sah and as such, their claim is bona fide. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the compromise between the parties does not indicate that the petitioner was the bona fide purchaser of the said 3 decimals of lands, which is in dispute. However, the respondents 2nd set do not deny that the parties have compromised the matter through the Mukhiya of the village, outside the Court, before the order of the revisional authority. The objection of the respondents is that the petitioner has not been able to show from the sale deed that plot no. 1132 with respect to 3 decimals of land was in fact included in the sale deed and as such it is said that the petitioner cannot claim that he has purchased 3 dhurs of land from Nathuni Mukhiya. 6. In view of the entire facts of this case, it is quite clear that the revisional survey entry made in favour of Kapoor Chand Mukhiya has been corrected in favour of the intervenors in the suit under Section 106 of the Act, which was not legally permissible in view of the provisions of the Act which I have referred to above. The option that was available for the Settlement Officer was to reject or dismiss the suit of the petitioner and uphold the revisional survey entry. The option that was available for the Settlement Officer was to reject or dismiss the suit of the petitioner and uphold the revisional survey entry. This circumstances aforesaid coupled with the fact that the respondents 2nd set breached the compromise as contained in Annexure- 11 after getting the advantage of owning and possessing 7 dhurs of land transferred by the petitioner to the respondents 2nd set, cannot be ignored by this Court. This shows the conduct of the respondents 2nd set who are trying to resile from the written agreement/compromise that they had entered into. The petitioner on his part fulfilled the terms of the compromise/agreement and transferred 7 decimals of land in favour of the respondents 2nd set. 7. In the facts aforesaid, I find that the order contained in Annexures-10 and 11 to this writ application are not sustainable. It would be incumbent upon the respondents 2nd set to act in accordance with the agreement/compromise and especially in view of the fact that parties do not dispute the fact that they were transferred 7 dhurs of land in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement/compromise. 8. This application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.