JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5, Mr. Indrasen Singh Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming co-tenancy right in respect to khata No. 762 situated in Village Pakaryari Poorab Patti, Tappa- Dhuriya Vijaipura, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobana, Tehsil Tamkuhiraj District Padrauna. In the aforementioned suit petitioner was impleaded as defendant no.1. The aforementioned suit was registered as suit No. 94/97. In the aforementioned suit, one compromise was filed stating that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 as well as defendant No. 1 shall be entitled to one-third share each in the dispute khata. The Trial Court/Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 13.7.1999 decided the aforementioned suit on the basis of compromise dated 15.7.1998. Against the compromise decree dated 13.7.1999, an application dated 14.7.1999 was filed on behalf of petitioner (defendant no.1 of the suit). The restoration application remained pending before the Trial Court and the petitioner was advised to file appeal against the compromise decree dated 13.7.1999 accordingly petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur and vide order dated 7.3.2005, the appeal was allowed setting aside the compromise decree dated 13.7.1999. Against the judgement of Additional Commissioner dated 7.3.2005, second appeal was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 which was registered as second appeal No. 19 of 2004-05 before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad. The aforementioned appeal was allowed vide order dated 10.7.2012 setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner dated 7.3.2005 and affirmed the compromise decree dated 13.7.1999. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgement and order dated 10.7.2012 (Annexure No.8 and confirm the judgement and order dated 7.3.2005 passed by first appellate Court. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to dismiss the suit itself." 3. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to dismiss the suit itself." 3. This Court vide order dated 19.7.2013 entertained the matter and directed both the parties not to alienate the proper in dispute. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 19.7.2013, parties have exchanged their affidavits. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 was decided on the basis of fraudulent compromise. He submitted that petitioner has applied for setting aside the compromise decree before the Trial Court but the application remained pending and no order was passed accordingly petitioner was advised to file an appeal before the Commissioner. He further submitted that appeal filed by petitioner was heard by Additional Commissioner and the same was rightly allowed. He submitted that Board of Revenue has illegally interfered with the order of Additional Commissioner and maintained the compromise decree passed by the Trial Court. He submitted that order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.7.2012 be set aside. He submitted that there should be proper adjudication of the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act rather on the basis of fraudulent compromise. He further submitted that plot in question is self-acquired property of petitioner, as such, co-tenancy cannot be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 has rightly been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants. He submitted that first the petitioner has applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree by way of restoration application and during pendency of restoration application, the appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner which has been allowed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that second appeal filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 has rightly been allowed which requires no interference. He submitted that in view of the finding recorded by Board of Revenue, there is no illegality in the order passed by Trial Court deciding the suit on the basis of compromise. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. He submitted that in view of the finding recorded by Board of Revenue, there is no illegality in the order passed by Trial Court deciding the suit on the basis of compromise. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 impleading the petitioner as defendant has been decided on the basis of compromise alleged to take place between the plaintiffs and defendants. There is also no dispute about the fact that Additional Commissioner has allowed the petitioner's appeal setting aside the compromise decree. There is also no dispute about the fact that in second appeal filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, the judgement and decree passed by Additional Commissioner has been set aside and the compromise decree passed in suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been affirmed. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the order passed by Additional Commissioner will also be relevant which is as under:- 10. The perusal of the order passed by Additional Commissioner as quoted above fully demonstrate that order passed by the Trial Court on the basis of the compromise is not in accordance with law, as such, matter should be decided by the Trial Court on merit in accordance with law although there is no proper mention in the operative portion of the order of Additional Commissioner for remitting the matter back before the Trial Court which requires necessary modification. 11. The Board of Revenue has interfered with the appellate order passed by Additional Commissioner and affirmed the order of Trial Court passed on the basis of compromise without considering the fact that petitioner who is sole defendant in the suit has not been given proper opportunity to contest the proceeding on merit. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.7.2012 passed by Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 13. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.7.2012 passed by Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 13. Writ petition stands allowed and order dated 7.3.2005 passed by Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur is modified to the extent that matter shall be remanded back before Trial Court to register the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on its original number and decide the same on merit after framing issues in the suit. It is further directed that the Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer Tamkuhiraj Kushinagar shall restore the proceeding of suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on its original number and decide the same after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 14. No order as to costs.