JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first to third respondents and Shri S.N. Tripathi for the fifth respondent. 2. The fifth respondent Smt. Gulabi Devi has filed an appeal on 21.09.2011 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation challenging the order dated 24.01.1995 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged conciliation between the parties. In the appeal, the fifth respondent contended that she had never entered into any conciliation nor has signed the compromise deed. The thumb impression on the compromise deed is not that of the fifth respondent. Thus, the main dispute in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was whether the compromise deed, on the basis of which the Assistant Consolidation Officer disposed of the matter bears the thumb impression of the fifth respondent or not. Although, it was the burden of the fifth respondent to have proved the said fact, but it seems that an application for obtaining opinion of expert in relation to the thumb impression on the alleged compromise deed was filed by the petitioner. It was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 13.08.2014. The only reasoning given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for rejecting the said application is that the matter is yet to be heard and decided on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision, which has been dismissed on the ground that the order impugned is an interlocutory order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 13.08.2014 and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.07.2016. 3. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the controversy raised in the appeal, it was necessary that an expert opinion is obtained. It is submitted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rejected the application mechanically. 4. Shri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent, at whose instance the appeal is pending, after obtaining instructions, has submitted that the compromise deed also does not bear the signatures of the members of the Consolidation Committee and thus, even otherwise, the compromise is not valid in the eye of law. 4. Shri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent, at whose instance the appeal is pending, after obtaining instructions, has submitted that the compromise deed also does not bear the signatures of the members of the Consolidation Committee and thus, even otherwise, the compromise is not valid in the eye of law. He, however, does not dispute that for adjudicating the plea as to whether the compromise deed bears the thumb impression of the fifth respondent or not, the opinion of the expert is necessary. He, therefore, agrees to the suggestion of the Court that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation should obtain the report of an expert, before proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. He, however, submits that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation be directed to decide the appeal within a fixed time frame. 5. Accordingly and in view of the statement made by Shri S.N. Tripathi before this Court, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders dated 28.07.2016 and 13.08.2014 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The application of the petitioner for obtaining report of hand writing expert shall stand allowed. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation will obtain the report of hand-writing expert on the expenses of the petitioner, to be deposited by him within two weeks from today. Soon after expenses are deposited, the second respondent shall obtain a report of hand-writing expert and thereafter proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of next two months. 6. In case the cost for obtaining report of hand-writing expert is not deposited by the petitioner within the time provided above, the application of the petitioner shall stand rejected and it shall be open to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to proceed to decide the appeal accordingly. Application Allowed.