Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) This is a chak allotment dispute. The petitioners are chak holder No. 382. They were dissatisfied with the proposal of the chak at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. They filed objections, which were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was decided on the basis of a compromise said to have been entered into between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 Jhari. Against the Settlement Officer Consolidation's order modifying the chak of the parties the respondent No. 3 filed a revision. That revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.2.1993 is impugned in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Swarup, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the copy of the compromise was not filed before him and that it is difficult to accept whether a party would agree to such terms. It is admitted to the Counsel for the parties that the record of the case was summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that in the said record the compromise was also there. Sri Avinash Swarup, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that originally when the memo of revision was filed the copy of the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was not filed along with it and the respondent No. 3 was not aware of the fact that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was based on compromise and that it was when the objections were filed by the petitioners in the Deputy Director's Court that the order is based on consent that it was revealed that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was passed on compromise and that in reply to the objection the respondent No. 3 has denied the compromise as also his signatures thereon. Even if that be so Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have given opportunity to the parties and examined on the basis of evidence whether in fact a compromise had been entered into before the Settlement Officer Consolidation or not and whether there were the signatures of the respondent No. 3 on the said compromise. He could not have assumed that there was no compromise merely on the basis that the no party would enter into a compromise by which he would give up his good quality original land. That if true may no doubt be a very relevant circumstance but is to be considered in the light of the evidence.;