JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari for the petitioner and Sri S.N.Tripathi for the caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.8.2016 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Ram Swarup(respondent-2) derived his title on the basis of sale deeds dated 12.8.1981 and 13.8.1981 executed by Smt. Dhaneshwari, mother of the petitioner in respect of her half share in the land in dispute. Subsequently, Smt. Dhaneshwari filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds in civil court. Her suit was dismissed and she filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the mother of the petitioner by judgment dated 28.1.1989. Thereafter, Further, Smt. Dhaneshwari did not contest the matter. During Consolidation, an objection was filed by respondent-2 for mutation of his name under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner being daughter of Smt. Dhaneshwari contested the matter. It is alleged that certain compromise was filed before Consolidation Officer on 5.8.2011. This compromise consisted photographs and signatures of both the parties, which were identified by their respective counsels. But the fact remains that this compromise was not verified before the Presiding Officer. Thereafter the matter was heard by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 17.8.2011 allowed the objection of respondent-2 on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 12.8.1981 and 13.8.1981 and the name of Ram Samujh was recorded in the revenue record as civil suit for cancellation of sale deed has already been dismissed from the stage of appellate court on 28.1.1989. Thus, Smt. Dhaneshwari had already parted with property in dispute and the petitioner did not inherit anything in it inasmuch her objection was rejected and that of respondent-2 was allowed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 31.1.12014 found that Consolidation Officer has to examine as to whether compromise dated 5.8.2011 was genuine or not. On this finding, he allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for deciding the genuineness of the compromise. Respondent-2 challenged the aforesaid order in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 1.8.2016 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 31.1.2014 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Respondent-2 challenged the aforesaid order in revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 1.8.2016 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 31.1.2014 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. So far as the compromise is concerned, the court can pass the order on the basis of compromise, only when the compromise is legal and not against the public policy as well as it is verified by the court. In the present case, compromise was not verified by Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the compromise amounts to transfer of the land in dispute, which could only be done through registered sale deed. Thus, non registration of compromise as well as its verification was the issue before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but he uselessly remanded for examining the validity of it inasmuch respondent-2 was not agreeing with the compromise and was challenging it before revision court. The order of revisional court in respect of compromise does not suffer from any illegality. Otherwise also the sale deeds executed by Smt. Dhaneshwari have already been upheld from civil court and judgment of the civil court will operate as res judicata against her. The sale deeds having been held to be valid, consolidation courts have no jurisdiction to go into its validity. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.