JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Govind Saran Nigam for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Verma for the contesting respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of SOC dated 2.11.2013 and DDC dated 13.5.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. It is alleged that there was compromise between the co-sharers of the petitioner before the ACO in respect of land of various khatas and on the basis of the compromise, the ACO by order dated 20.1.1990 decided the dispute between the parties. Thereafter, the order was challenged in appeal by Jalaluddin and others on 15.4.1993, along with delay condonation application. It has been stated in the memorandum of appeal that khata no. 273 was exclusive property of Jalaluddin and others (appellants) and Mohd. Yunus and other respondents have no share in it. ACO without issuing any notice to the appellants, on the basis of a fabricated compromise, passed the impugned order dated 20.1.1990. On coming to know about the order, the appeal was filed. Since the order was passed without any notice to the parties, as such, delay was liable to be condoned. The appeal was heard by SOC, who by order dated 2.11.2013, found that the compromise dated 20.1.1990 appears to be doubtful. As the right of the parties are decided finally forever during consolidation, as such, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the parties be allowed to contest the matter on merit. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 20.1.1990 and remanded the matter to CO for trial of dispute between the parties on merit. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which was heard by DDC, who by order dated 13.2.2015 found that some of the lines of the conciliation recorded by ACO are written in the margin, as such, the entire proceeding appears to be doubtful and it appears that the signatures were obtained prior to recording the conciliation. Jalaluddin used to make his signature in Hindi, while his signature on the conciliation is in Urdu. In these circumstances, the SOC has not committed any illegality in setting aside the order of ACO and remanding the matter for trial of dispute on merit. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Jalaluddin used to make his signature in Hindi, while his signature on the conciliation is in Urdu. In these circumstances, the SOC has not committed any illegality in setting aside the order of ACO and remanding the matter for trial of dispute on merit. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the genuineness of the compromise has been challenged by Jalaluddin and others. This Court in Ramraj v. D.D.C. 2011 (113) RD 571 held that genuineness is required to be challenged before the same authority. In this case, the genuineness has been challenged before the Appellate Court, without challenging it before the ACO, as such, the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in this respect. He submits that Jalaluddin used to make signatures in Urdu as well as in Hindi. There must be evidence in this respect that the signature of Jalaluddin on the compromise was not made by him and a finding ought to have been recorded in this respect, but neither there is any evidence, nor any finding and the order passed by ACO has been illegally set aside. There were other co-sharers also who have not challenged the compromise. On the basis of the order of ACO, some of the co-sharers have also executed the conciliation, therefore, without considering all these facts, the SOC has illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the order of ACO, after about 20 years, although the compromise between the parties have been acted upon and there was no reason to condone the inordinate delay. 5. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. The alleged order of ACO was passed on 20.1.1990, while the appeal was filed on 15.4.1993. Thus, the reason for delay has been explained that order of ACO was passed without any notice to the appellants and on the basis of fabricated compromise. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show that the compromise was signed by the appeallants themselves. Thus, the allegations made in the memorandum of appeal and affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, have been accepted by the SOC and the appeal was allowed. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show that the compromise was signed by the appeallants themselves. Thus, the allegations made in the memorandum of appeal and affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, have been accepted by the SOC and the appeal was allowed. The DDC found that some of the terms of conciliation recorded by the ACO have been written in the margin, which shows that signatures on blank papers have been obtained before recording the terms of conciliation. Accordingly, the allegations made by the appellants were rightly accepted by the SOC. A photostat certified copy of the compromise has been filed as annexure-4 to the writ petition, which shows that about six lines of the terms of conciliation were written in margin. Rule 25-A(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 provides as follows: - 25-A. Sections 9-A, 9-B and 9-C - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, as far as possible, deal with all the objections filed by a tenure holder with regard to matters referred to in clause (i) of Section 9-B in village itself. In deciding disputes on the basis of conciliation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A, he shall record the terms of conciliation in the presence of at least two members of the Consolidation Committee of the village. These terms shall then be read over to the parties concerned and their signatures or thumb impressions obtained. The members of the Consolidation Committee present shall also sign the terms of conciliation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall also sign the terms of conciliation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall then pass orders deciding the dispute in terms of conciliation specifying the precise entries to be made in the records. Details of the operative part of the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be noted in the Misilband register. No ex parte order or orders in default shall be passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 7. Thus, it is the duty of ACO to record the conciliation proceeding, in the presence of the parties and two members of the Consolidation Committee and read and explain it to them and thereafter get their signatures on it. If the conciliation proceeding was recorded before getting the signatures on it, then, there could be no reason for writing six lines of the terms of conciliation in margin of the page. If the conciliation proceeding was recorded before getting the signatures on it, then, there could be no reason for writing six lines of the terms of conciliation in margin of the page. Thus, the allegation of the contesting respondents that before the ACO the compromise was fabricated, which has been accepted by the SOC as well as DDC, does not require interference by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly, when the petitioner has a remedy to agitate his grievance before the CO. 8. So far as the case law of Ramraj (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is a case under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C.. Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the ACO has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Even if the issue is raised as to whether the conciliation proceeding was signed by the parties or not, he will have no jurisdiction to decide this issue. Thus, the submission that the matter be raised by the ACO has no force. Even the C.P.C. has been amended and now, Order XXIII Rule 3(1)(A) as well as Order 43 Rule 1-A have been added. Thus, the issue in this respect can be raised before the same authority or before the Appellate Court. There can be no reason if the authority is competent to decide any dispute, then the appellate authority will not be competent to decide that issue itself. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has no application in the present case. 9. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.