JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri O.P. Singh Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.P. Singh for respondent nos. 2,4 and 7. 3. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of Chaks and is directed against the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the respondent no.1. in a revision filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the the petitioners. 4. The revision has been allowed, yet the petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order in his favour. 5. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is two fold. He submits that the petitioners and the opposite party no.1 in the revision namely Ram Asrey S/o Late Brij Raj entered into a compromise. This compromise has been wrongly and illegally discarded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order. The second contention is that the parties have been in possession for the past 40 years, and any disturbance as has been caused by the impugned order will lead to unnecessary complications and multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned order therefore, is liable to be set aside. 6. Shri A.P. Singh counsel for the respondents has submitted that the revision has been allowed as per the demand of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and this is clear from a perusal of Ground No.6 in the memo of revision. He further submits that earlier an almost identical order had been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in year 1977. Satya Narayan one of the parties to the revision filed a writ petition which was allowed in the year 1983, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision after providing him an adequate opportunity of hearing. 7. After having obtained the order of remand, Satya Narayan never appeared in the proceedings and only sought adjournments to keep the matter pending and this is noted in the impugned order itself. 8. He lastly contends that in so far as the alleged compromise between the petitioners and Brij Raj or his son is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that on the date the compromise was entered into, Brij Raj has already sold the land regarding which the compromise was being recorded. 8. He lastly contends that in so far as the alleged compromise between the petitioners and Brij Raj or his son is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that on the date the compromise was entered into, Brij Raj has already sold the land regarding which the compromise was being recorded. In the right circumstances has rightly been held that he had no right to enter into a compromise regarding land which he had already sold. The compromise has therefore, rightly been discarded by the Court below and the impugned order call for no interference. 9. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The memo of revision filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners is available on record as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition. I have examined the demands made by this revision which is primarily contained in Ground No.6 raised therein. In this ground it has been stated that the revisionist had been proposed a chak on plot nos. 256,258,261,262,263 and 264, in front of his house, and that such allotment should be maintained. 11. Perusal of the correction table appended to the impugned order reveals that plot nos. 256, 258 have been given by it. 12. In so far as Plot nos. 261 and 262 are concerned, counsel for the parties agree that they are chak out plots. Chak out plots can never be subject matter of an order passed in proceedings for allotment of chaks. It therefore, stands admitted that these plots are still in the possession of the petitioners, they being then original holders and, as these plots stood excluded from consolidation operation. 13. It therefore, stands established on record. that the revision has been allowed granting almost entire relief to the petitioner prayed for in the revision itself. Under the circumstances I do not see any justification for the petitioner being aggrieved by the order impugned. 14. 13. It therefore, stands established on record. that the revision has been allowed granting almost entire relief to the petitioner prayed for in the revision itself. Under the circumstances I do not see any justification for the petitioner being aggrieved by the order impugned. 14. On the issue of the compromise, apart from the observations that have been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner, that the compromise was between the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and Brij Raj who had already sold the land before entering into compromise and therefore, he had no right to enter into the compromise regarding land he had sold, it would be relevant to note that from the memo of revision it is revealed that apart from Ram Asrey S/o Brij Raj, there were five other opposite parties in the revision. These parties were not signatories to the compromise relied upon by the petitioner. It is a well settled that a valid compromise has to be entered between all the parties to the litigation. Admittedly this is not the position in the case at hand. This is an additional ground why the compromise could not have been accepted. 15. However, the ground which has been given in the impugned order for discarding the compromise is an equally valid ground. The impugned order therefore, calls for no interference, on this ground as well. 16. In view of the discussion, and since the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are without substance, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.