Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri U.S.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj, learned counsel holding brief of Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, Advocate for the contesting respondents No. 2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioners and the contesting respondents entered into a compromise in proceedings under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer on 30th July, 1974. The said compromise was presented, according to the petitioners, after the parties put their thumb impressions and were duly verified by their respective counsel. A certified copy of the compromise has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

3. The application of compromise was moved and it has been indicated in the order of the Consolidation Officer that the compromise has been presented before him and which was accepted and accordingly an order was passed in terms of the said compromise.

4. The respondents appear to have moved an application on 7th August, 1974 before the Consolidation Officer that the said compromise was allegedly entered into on account of undue influence being exercised by some persons and that the Consolidation Officer/Presiding Officer was not present on the date when the said compromise is said to have been entered into. Since the petitioners wanted to usurp the property, therefore, the said application was moved alleging that fraud had been practiced and a prayer was made to recall the order of compromise.

5. The said application was contested by the parties and the Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that the compromise had been duly entered into by the parties after putting their thumb impressions and had been also verified by their respective counsel namely Sadhu Saran, Advocate and Suresh Chandra Verma, Advocate. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 21st August, 1974 rejected the restoration application moved by the respondents.

6. An appeal was preferred and in the memo of appeal a fresh ground was taken that the compromise was transcribed on a plain piece of paper on which signatures have been fraudulently obtained telling the respondents that the same was necessary for getting a spot inspection carried out. The denial of the compromise, therefore, took a different turn in the memo of appeal. The appellate Court after having recorded findings came to the conclusion that no allegations have been made against both the learned counsel, who have verified the said compromise and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the compromise had not been entered into. The recall application was therefore moved as an after thought by the respondents, and the appeal was rejected.

7. A revision was preferred by the respondents where it was alleged that a forged compromise had been prepared and that both the learned counsel had not been authorized to enter into any such compromise. It was also alleged that Awadh Bihari Mishra and the learned counsel Sadhu Saran were real brothers and, therefore, all correct facts were not represented. This was a new third dimension that was set up in the memo of revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded to hear the revision and came to the conclusion that since the revisionists are illiterate persons, it was probable that they were given to understand something else whereas the contents of the compromise application were something else. He further went on to hold that since Awadh Bihari Mishra, Advocate and Sadhu Sharan Mishra, Advocate were real brothers, therefore, it was quite possible that the counsel had not acted fairly. It was therefore not appropriate for the authority below to have cast way the allegations made by the revisionists. The Deputy Direction of Consolidation further recorded that it is just possible that fraud was played. It was further commented that the compromise appears to have been presented by the counsel and not the parties in person. Accordingly the orders of Consoli