Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar holding brief of Sri Gaya Prasad Singh appearing for contesting respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) Petitioner and contesting respondents are real brothers. Against the order dated 15.3.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer in chak allotment proceedings, petitioner filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation. Dispute between the parties was compromised and accordingly an application was moved before the appellate Court to decide the dispute on the basis of terms of compromise between the parties. However, Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that signature of petitioner on the compromise do not tally with the signature on the memo of appeal, refused to decide the appeal on the basis of compromise and after rejecting the compromise instead of proceeding to decide the appeal on merits he dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred a revision. On the date fixed for hearing, petitioner was absent and Deputy Director of Consolidation also refused to accept the compromise and dismissed the revision.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for petitioner that in absence of any objection raised by contesting respondents to the compromise, appellate Court as well as revisional Court has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the compromise. It has further been urged that once the compromise was not accepted, appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal but it should have decided the same on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.;