Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner-Tulsi Ram and Raja Ram are chak holder No. 53, respondent No. 2 Ram Kishun is chak holder No. 126 while respondent No. 3 Bhaiya Ram is chak holder No. 93. The petition arises out of objections under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Against the order of allotment of chaks passed by the Consolidation Officer an appeal was filed by the petitioner. Another appeal against the same order was filed by the respondent No. 3 Bhaiya Ram. Before the Settlement Officer Consolidation a compromise is said to have been entered into between the petitioner and one jagannath chak holder No. 40 who is not a party in the present writ petition. The appeal was decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 22.6.1987 accepting the compromise between Jagannath and the petitioner. By virtue of the said compromise plot No. 1 of Jagannath was given to the petitioners and the 'petitioners' plots were given to Jagannath. In giving effect to the compromise certain plots, which were not either of the petitioners or of jagannath but were of the respondents-Bhaiya Ram and Ram Kishun who were not parties to the compromise were affected and were allotted to the petitioners and Jagannath. In so far as the appeal of Bhaiya Ram is concerned it was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that the necessary parties who were to be affected in the appeal were not impleaded. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation two revisions were filed one by Bhaiya Ram and tire other by Ram Kishun. The Deputy Director Consolidation has allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has directed that the chak of the parties as at the stage of the Consolidation Officer shall be restored. This order of the Deputy Director Consolidation has been challenged by the petitioners.
(2.) I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned Senior Counsel and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M. Abbas Naqvi, learned Counsel for the respondent Ram Kishun and Sri Sushil Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent Bhaiya Ram.
(3.) The Deputy Director Consolidation has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation based on the compromise on the ground that it affected the Chaks of Bhaiya Ram and Ram Kishun who were not parties to the compromise. The reasoning appears to be sound. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after setting aside of order of the Settlement) Officer Consolidation the Deputy Director Consolidation has erroneously restored the chak of the parties at the stage of the Consolidation Officer without considering the merits of the petitioners case and the proper course for the Deputy Director Consolidation was to remand the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for fresh decision on merits. It is also submitted that in so far as the compromise between the petitioners and Jagannath is concerned the same was not challenged by Jagannath and the said compromise in so far as it does not affect the respondents-Ram Kishun and Bhaiya Ram or other tenure holder ought to be maintained. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation does indicate that after holding that the compromise could not affect the respondents-Bhaiya Ram and Ram Kishun who were not parties to it the Deputy Director Consolidation has restored the chak at the consolidation officer stage without considering the case of the parties on merits. The order of the Deputy Director Consolidation therefore appears to be erroneous and the case should go back for fresh decision. The case involves facts and I am of the view that it should go back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The only submission made by Sri S.N. Abbas Naqvi, learned Counsel for the respondent is that the matter is an old one and it should be sent back to the Deputy Director Consolidation. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director Consolidation dated 5.1.1988 and of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 22.6.1987 are set aside and the Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to the decide appeal of the petitioners afresh. Petition allowed.;