R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) In this petition dispute is confined to khata no. 109 only Before consolidation authorities there was dispute among opposite parties inter se in respect of share in numerous khatas. It is not disputed rather on the finding recorded by consolidation authorities it stands established that Ram Naresh Lal was co-tenant of one half of khata no. 109. Petitioner claims to be vendee from one Smt. Sarojni Devi and Smt. Sharda. According to him Ram Naresh Lal had sold some plots of this khata in favour of these two ladies in 1969 and from them he purchased in 1971 while the appeal was pending. It was because of this that petitioner's impleadment application was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation but without deciding the controversy whether sale deed executed by Ram Naresh Lal in favour of Smt. Sarojni and Smt. Sharda was valid and the effect of the sale deed executed by Smt. Sarojni and Smt. Sharda in favour of petitioner the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the claim and held opposite parties as tenants of khata no. 109. In doing so he obviously committed an error of law. Once petitioner was impleaded it was incumbent on Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide his claim. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that respondents entered into compromise which was accepted by Deputy Director of Consolidation but in the compromise petitioner was not party. It could not be held as binding on him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in rejection of petitioner became parties had entered into compromise committed an error apparent on the face of the record.
(2.) In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part, The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of khata no. 109 qua the petitioner is quashed. He shall decide the claim of petitioner afresh. Parties shall bear their own costs.;