JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Prem Narayan Rai for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Yadav for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.1.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.5.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. The demand of the petitioner was for allotment of chak on plot No. 51. Plot No. 51 area 2.305 hectare is the original holding of the petitioner along with other co-sharers in which the petitioner had 1/20 share. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was allotted his first chak on plot No. 61 area 0.200 hectare and second chak on plot No. 73 area 0.909 hectare. The petitioner did not file any objection against the proposed chak. The petitioner directly filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and prayed for deleting his chak on plot nos. 74, 75, 79 and 80 and allotting its valuation on plot No. 51. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 29.7.2011 decided the appeal of the petitioner along with other appeals of the village and Settlement Officer Consolidation by taking an area of 0.542 hectare from the second chak of the petitioner, allotted its valuation on plot No. 51. Thereafter Ramjeet, Sant Lal and Ram Pyare and others filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation passed a fresh order on 20.1.2014 in which he has partly modified his earlier order dated 29.7.2011 and the area which was allotted to the petitioner on plot No. 51 was deleted and its valuation was again allotted on plot nos. 76 and 80. The petitioner filed two revisions i.e. Revision No. 285 was against the order dated 29.7.2011 and Revision No. 573 was against the order dated 20.1.2014. Both the revisions were consolidated and decided by a common order dated 31.5.2016. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the chak Revision No. 285 found that the petitioner has not filed any objection for allotment of chak on plot No. 51 before the Consolidation Officer as such his demand in this respect cannot be accepted. So far as Revision No. 573 is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that plot nos. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the chak Revision No. 285 found that the petitioner has not filed any objection for allotment of chak on plot No. 51 before the Consolidation Officer as such his demand in this respect cannot be accepted. So far as Revision No. 573 is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that plot nos. 55, 56, 64 and 71 were the original holding of Sant Lal, who was allotted chak on plot No. 51. Sant Lal being a Scheduled Caste person has been rightly allotted chak near his abadi and his chak is not liable to be disturbed. On this finding Revision No. 573 of the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has already decided appeal on merit after hearing the parties by order dated 29.7.2011. Therefore he had no jurisdiction to review his order and pass a subsequent order dated 20.1.2014. He further submits that during pendency of restoration application, the parties entered into the compromise and a written compromise signed by the parties was filed on 4.12.2012. The Settlement Officer Consolidation partly acted upon the compromise but a part of the compromise has not been followed inasmuch as under this compromise, the petitioner was required to be allotted chak on plot No. 56 but he was not allotted chak on plot No. 56. Plot No. 51 is the original holding of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of chak on plot No. 51. If the chak is allotted on the principles of original holding as given under Section 19 of the Act is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for chak on plot No. 51. In other case if the chak is allotted on the basis of compromise between the parties then the petitioner is entitled for allotment of chak on plot No. 56 but the claim of the petitioner either for allotment of chak on plot No. 51 or for allotment of chak on plot No. 56 under the compromise but both were not accepted without giving any reason. The order of chak allotment is illegal and liable to be set aside. The order of chak allotment is illegal and liable to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh and others, 2012 (117) RD 605 SC in which it has been held that compromise having being merged in the decree, is binding upon the parties. He also relied upon a judgement of this Court in Radhey Shyam and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2012 (115) RD 605 in which it has been held that chak can be adjusted in terms of compromise by the parties. 5. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has no application in this case. So far as the argument that the subsequent order dated 20.1.2014 amounts to review, is concerned, admittedly Bal Kishan was dead at the time of passing the order dated 29.7.2011. It is not challenged that heirs of Bal Kishan were not represented at the time of passing the order dated 29.7.2011. Thus the heirs of Bal Kishan filed an application for recall of the order on which second order dated 20.1.2014 was passed. Since order dated 29.7.2011 was ex parte order again Bal Kishan and his heirs, therefore Settlement Officer Consolidation was justified in recalling the order dated 29.7.2011 and passing a fresh order dated 20.1.2014. 7. So far as the compromise 4.12.2012 is concerned, the compromise was entered between the petitioner, Ramkesh and Ram Prasad on one side and Sant Lal, Ramjeet, Ram Dulare and Smt. Udasi Devi on the other side. While at the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation plot No. 56 was allotted in the chak of Uma Shankar and others. They were not party in the compromise. Thus the compromise could not be acted upon as at that time, plot No. 56 was not allotted in the chak of the parties of the compromise. 8. According to CH Form 23, the petitioner was having 1/20 share on plot No. 51. Plot No. 51 is otherwise situate in front of the house of Sant Lal, therefore, he was allotted chak on it. The petitioner was allotted chak on his original holding of plot No. 61 and other original holding on plot No. 73 which were larger holding of the petitioner. Plot No. 51 is otherwise situate in front of the house of Sant Lal, therefore, he was allotted chak on it. The petitioner was allotted chak on his original holding of plot No. 61 and other original holding on plot No. 73 which were larger holding of the petitioner. Thus the chak of the petitioner has been on his largest part of his holding and in the vicinity of same plot. Admittedly the house of the petitioner is not adjoining to plot No. 51 and looking to the share of the petitioner in this plot, he is not entitled for allotment of chak on plot No. 51. 9. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.