JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral). 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Pankaj Tangwan, Brief Holder on behalf of State and Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. 2. By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.10.2004 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation in Revision No. 482 of 2002-03, order dated 10-7-2003 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar in appeal No. 221 filed U/S 11 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act and order dated 21.2.1997 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 1206, contained in Annexure Nos. 1,3 and 5 to the writ petition. 3. By the impugned order dated 21.2.1997 the file was put up before Consolidation Committee and the land in dispute was divided amongst the parties on the basis of compromise. The appeal and revision preferred against the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, were dismissed. 4. According to the petitioners they have never entered into compromise and this fact has not been considered by the Appellate Court as well as by the Revisional Court, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 drew attention of this court to the Rule- 25-(a) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954, and contended that the Assistant Consolidation Officer may record the terms of compromise on his own in presence of Consolidation Committee. In the case at hand the terms of compromise were recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in presence of Consolidation Committee. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the grievance of petitioners against the compromise order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer was that the compromise does not bear their signatures and the signatures are forged, and they straightway filed appeal against the said order and thereafter revision, without resorting the procedure to move the application for setting aside the compromise order before the Consolidation Officer. He has relied on the judgment of Ramraj versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, reported in [2011 (113) RD 571], rendered by Allahabad High Court, wherein it has been held in para-7 of the judgment that so far as the factum of compromise has to be agitated before the court concerned. 7. He has relied on the judgment of Ramraj versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, reported in [2011 (113) RD 571], rendered by Allahabad High Court, wherein it has been held in para-7 of the judgment that so far as the factum of compromise has to be agitated before the court concerned. 7. I have gone through the above cited judgment. In view of above judgment the appeal and revisions were not maintainable, therefore the appeal and the revision were rightly dismissed. 8. However, liberty is given to petitioners to file the recall application, if so advised, before the Consolidation Officer on the ground mentioned in the appeal. The orders passed by S.O.C./ Appellate Court, as well as Deputy Director Consolidation/revisional court shall not come in the way while deciding the recall application moved by petitioners by the Consolidation Officer in respect of alleged compromise. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.