A writ petition in the nature of certiorari can and should be decided on the basis of compromise.

( 1 ) A suit or a Civil appeal can be decided on the basis of compromise under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) but whether a writ petition in the nature of certiorari, which lies on the error apparent on the face of the record, can be decided (allowed) on the basis of a compromise is a question involved in these cases. The Facts

( 2 ) ONE Abhilash Singh was common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons. Hanuman Dayal Singh, Hari Narain Singh and Shiva Narain Singh. The successors-in-interest of Hanuman Dayal Singh and Hari Narain Singh (the plaintiffs) are on one side; one of the grand daughters of Shiv Narain Singh namely, Smt. Ram Kumari alias Rama Devi and her husband Surendra Nath Rai (the defendant-appellants) are on the other side.

( 3 ) THE dispute in second appeal No. 1271 of 2000 is in respect of house No. D-44/182-A, Bagh Rani Bhawani (Ramapura), Varanasi. Smt. Shyam Kunwar, the mother of Smt. Ram Kumari and daughter in law of Shiv Narain Singh, was recorded in the Municipal records over the same. She executed a sale deed in respect of this house in favour of her son-in-law Surendra Nath Rai (husband of Smt. Ram Kumari) on 13-10-1977. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that Smt. Shyam Kunwar was merely a benamidar and the sale of the disputed, house was illegal. This suit was decreed on 26-5-1989. Defendant-appellants filed an appeal before this Court. The Court granted an interim order on 7-8-1989 staying their dispossession on deposit of money. This appeal was later transferred to the District Courts; it was dismissed on 21-9-2000. The defendant-appellants have filed the second appeal.

( 4 ) THE dispute in writ petition No. 12510 of 1996 is in respect of Chak No. 296 (area 10. 18 acres) and 1/3rd share of chak-out plot No. 187 (area 46 decimal) situate in village Digghi, Pargana Dhoos, district Varanasi (now district Chandauli ). The chak no. 296 was recorded exclusively in the name of Smt. Shyama Kunwar as tenure holder. In the chak out plot she was recorded along with the plaintiffs; she was shown to have 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs filed an objection in the consolidation proceedings for expunging her name. It was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 4-11-1980. The plaintiffs appeal was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer, Varanasi (ASOC) on 15-4-1994. Smt. Ram Kumari filed a revision, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi (DDC) on 6-2-1996. The writ petition is against this order of the DDC.

( 5 ) DURING pendency of these cases, parties have compromised and similar compromise applications along with affidavits were filed in the second appeal and the writ petition. It was sent to the District Judge for verification. He has verified it and sent it back. The compromise application is also signed by the counsels of the parties. The compromise application in the second appeal is numbered as Civil Misc. Compromise Application No. 52531 of 2001. It is a long application but terms of compromise are in sub-paragraphs (1) to (7) of Paragraph 21 of this application. These terms along with details of three sets of applicants (described as defendant-appellants-Applicants I set, Plaintiff-respondents - Applicants II set and Defendant-respondent-Applicants III Set) in the beginning of the compromise application explain the compromise among the parties.

( 6 ) THIS compromise relates to property in dispute in the second appeal and the writ petition, as well as some other property. The terms of the compromise, so far as property in dispute in the cases here, are as follows : the property in dispute in the suit is to be given to the defendant-appellants and the amount deposited by the defendant-appellants is to be returned to them. The property in dispute in consolidation is to be given to the plaintiffs. The result is that in case the compromise is accepted, then the second appeal as well as the writ petition has to be allowed.