Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners land Sri Faujdar Rai learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under: The plot in dispute was recorded in the name of Smt. Nagesra wife of Ram Nihore and contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the grand sons of Smt. Nagesra. On her death respondent Nos. 4 and 5 set up claim before the consolidation authorities for her 1/2 share in the plot in dispute on the basis of a will in their favour. The Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of a compromise alleged to have been arrived at between respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Ram Swaroop, the father of the present petitioners held the respondents to be entitled to succeed 1/2 share of Smt. Nagesra. After death of Ram Swaroop in 2003, the petitioners went in for mutation of their names and then came to know about the alleged order dated 11.7.1996 passed on the basis of compromise. They filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 27.2.2004 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 11.7.1996 on the ground that compromise does not bear signature of Ram Swaroop and there is no compliance of Rule 25-A of the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 19.10.2004 allowed the same. Against which the present writ petition has been preferred.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;