JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Pleadings are complete and writ petition is listed for final hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The dispute arises out of an alleged compromise entered into between some of the descendants of the common ancestors Durga. Pedigree is detailed below : Durga Mohan Waldi Pachchu Sital Deen Sheoram (Dead) Thakurdin Budh Ram Smt. Shitali Devi (Dead) Ram Autar Bhaiya Ram Jagannath Dasa Ganga Sangram Jabar Sarvajitt Ram Sajiwan Ram Pyare Ram Deen Singh Singh Singh Waldi Sheo Narain Ram Adhin Mahadev Baiju Ram Pd. Rameshwar Mahipat Dhani Ram Nankoo Sri Lal Smt. Budhani Hari Ram Kamta Jagnnath Satrudhan Lal Suchit Amrit Lal Mehi Lal 4. This writ petition has been filed by Bhaiya Ram and others challenging the order passed in reference/report dated 27.12.1983 by respondent Nos. 3, 1 and 2 respectively. 5. According to the petitioners, names of Dasha Ram, Ganga Deen, Sangram Singh, Jabbar Singh, Sarvjeet Singh sons of Ram Autar, Ram Prasad and Rameshwar sons of Shiv Narain, Hari Lal and Ram Suchit sons of Baiju and Jagannath son of Budh Ram were recorded in the basic year. Claim of the petitioners is that reconciliation took place between the parties and name of Bhaiya Ram son of Budh Ram and Mahadeo son of Ram Adheen were added as co-sharers and its Amaldramad was made in the Khatauni 1376 to 1378 Fasli. This Amaldramad was carried out in the year 1976 though the village was notified for consolidation and reconciliation took place on 17.12.1974. The contesting respondents preferred an Appeal No. 1525 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Mahadeo son of Ram Adheen was not impleaded in the appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, vide order dated 2.7.1977 ordered impleadment of Mahadeo. His name was not added in the alleged reconciliation document and authority was of the view that the appeal could not proceed without arraying all the necessary parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the order of impleadment passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. Reconciliation was challenged without impleading Mahadeo and appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 1.4.1978. The said order was challenged in revision by Dasha Ram and others. The Joint Director Consolidation, Allahabad directed the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to conduct an inquiry as it was alleged that so called reconciliation was a fraud. Reconciliation was challenged without impleading Mahadeo and appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 1.4.1978. The said order was challenged in revision by Dasha Ram and others. The Joint Director Consolidation, Allahabad directed the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to conduct an inquiry as it was alleged that so called reconciliation was a fraud. The Settlement Officer Consolidation sent a report to the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 27.2.1981expressing grave doubt about proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.12.1983 came to a conclusion that the order dated 17.12.1974 stood vitiated on account of fraud and he accepted the reference setting aside the reconciliation order dated 17.12.1974. A further direction was given that action should be taken against guilty employees of the consolidation department but did not think it proper to remand the matter before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the respective claims and shares of the family members. The petitioners claimed that rights of Mahadeo and Bhaiya Ram who were added subsequently in the reconciliation proceeding remained undecided till date on account of reason that they were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings. 6. An application for restoration was also filed by the petitioners on 20.9.1984 on the ground that they had no knowledge about the proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the application on 30.7.1985 as he was of the view that notices were duly served and his predecessor has recorded a finding that opportunity of hearing was given by the then Deputy Director Consolidation and, therefore, the order is after due opportunity of hearing and application of mind. 7. After hearing the respective counsels at length and going through order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, I am of the considered view that in stead of going into the questions of fact and analyzing the merits and claim of the respective parties, he has only issued direction for proper action against erring employees of the consolidation department. The finding that despite appropriate information and notice, parties have not come and so called compromise arrived at between the parties on the face of it, appears to be questionable and a dubious act of the signatories of the compromise. The finding that despite appropriate information and notice, parties have not come and so called compromise arrived at between the parties on the face of it, appears to be questionable and a dubious act of the signatories of the compromise. The entire case revolves round the compromise and impugned order dated 27.12.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad is evidently not free from doubt and appears to be shady and unbelieveable. The Deputy Director Consolidation should have remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to issue notice to all the parties and after giving them due opportunity of hearing decide the questions and respective claims on merit. Having failed to do so, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be left to stand. 8. In view of what has been stated above, the order dated 27.12.1983 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation is quashed but the part of his order directing inquiry against the erring consolidation authorities, shall stand, the matter is remanded to the stage of Consolidation Officer who shall record evidence and give a patient hearing to the parties and arrive at a positive conclusion and ensure that no further ambiguity continues while deciding respective claims of the parties. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Till the decision of the Consolidation Officer, the parties who are in possession of their respective shares, shall continue in possession. The Consolidation Officer shall make every effort to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. —————