JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.11.2016, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in Revision No.14/20 of 2016-17. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no.458/13, area 4 bigha, 15 biswa, situated in Mauja Sukrit, Pargana Ahraura, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. 4. It appears that the land in question was recorded in the name of one Dangar son of Tulasi. 5. An objection, under Section 12 of the Consolidation of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, was filed, wherein the name of the Arjun was ordered to be recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of a compromise dated 18.01.1985, on the basis whereof, 4 Bigha, 15 Bishwa of the plot in question out of total area of 5 Bigha was ordered to be recorded in the name of Arjun, while the remaining was to continue in the same of Dangar. 6. It appears that Hari Nandan, respondent no.2, the real brother of Arjun claimed on the basis of an unregistered will allegedly executed in his favour on 27.12.1982 by Dangar. 7. Against the compromise order, passed in favour of Arjun, respondent no.2, Hari Nandan filed an appeal, which was dismissed in the year 2005. 8. Hari Nandan therefore, preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 25.03.2015, exparte, the order dated 18.01.1985, which was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, allegedly on the basis of a compromise was set aside and the revisionist Hari Nandan was directed to be recorded over the land in question. 9. The revisional order was passed exparte. It appears that that during the pendency of the litigation, Arjun executed a sale deed of the land recorded in his name in pursuance of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in favour of the petitioner. 10. On coming to know of the order dated 25.03.2015, the petitioner preferred a restoration applicant, which was allowed and the revision was restored to its original number. It has been decided after hearing the parties by the order impugned dated 30.11.2016. 11. 10. On coming to know of the order dated 25.03.2015, the petitioner preferred a restoration applicant, which was allowed and the revision was restored to its original number. It has been decided after hearing the parties by the order impugned dated 30.11.2016. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the compromise order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the finding that was passed without complying with the provisions of Rule 25 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules; because the compromise had not been recorded before the Assistant Consolidation Officer; the two members of the Consolidation Committee, who were alleged to be the signatories to the compromise have filed affidavits denying their signatures, thereon. 12. In so far as the will set up by the Hari Nandan is concerned, the revisional Court observed that it was an unregistered document and had not been proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. 13. Besides, the scribe of the will as also one of its marginal witness had filed notary affidavits bearing their photographs denying their signatures on the will. The will was accordingly found to be a forged and fabricated document. 14. Having discarded the compromise order and the will set up by Hari Nandan, the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed that the nephews of Dangar i.e. Arjun and Hari Narayan were liable to be recorded over the land in question in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is a bonafide purchaser from the recorded tenure holder, Arjun. The impugned order, is therefore, vitiated and must be set aside. 16. It is also submitted that the compromise order had not been challenged by Dangar and it was not open for Hari Nandan, respondent no.2 to challenge the same. 17. It is lastly submitted that the appeal filed by Hari Nandan, respondent no.2 had been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay but this aspect was not adverted to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while allowing his revision. 18. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 19. 17. It is lastly submitted that the appeal filed by Hari Nandan, respondent no.2 had been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay but this aspect was not adverted to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while allowing his revision. 18. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 19. From the submission made and upon a perusal of the record, it emerges that the alleged compromise order was passed on an objection, under Section 12 of the Act. This section deals with the transfers, succession or assignment of agricultural land during the currency of the consolidation operations. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that Dangar , the recorded tenure holder, was a signatory to the compromise. 20. On a pointed query by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no sale deed executed by Dangar in favour of the objector, Arjun. 21. Since the compromise order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, allegedly during the lifetime of the recorded tenure holder without therebeing any deed of the transfer in his favour, the compromise order, in any case was, at best, an illegal transfer. This along with the findings that have been returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order renders the compromise order, patently illegal. 22. Therefore, even if it is held that there was due compliance of Rule 25 of the Act, the compromise order was an illegal transfer, which cannot be accepted. For the same reason, I do not find any reason to interfere with the revisional order, which has set it aside , as in my considered opinion, it is a perfectly correct order which is fully justified. 23. The impugned order in so far as it discards the will set up by Hari Nandan is concerned, the same requires no consideration. This part of the order can only be challenged by Hari Nandan, who has not come up before this Court. 24. In view of the impugned order, the land in question shall be recorded jointly in the names of Arjun, the vendor of the petitioners and Hari Nandan, both having equal, share therein. 25. This part of the order can only be challenged by Hari Nandan, who has not come up before this Court. 24. In view of the impugned order, the land in question shall be recorded jointly in the names of Arjun, the vendor of the petitioners and Hari Nandan, both having equal, share therein. 25. The petitioner therefore, will necessarily be entitled to the half share in the property, in case, his sale deed is not disputed by Arjun, his alleged vendor, as this has share has been given to Arjun by the impugned order. 26. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and since the impugned order and the reasoning therein are found to be in accordance with law, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.