HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 662 of 2024 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Anjani Kumar Dvivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Vipul Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. By means of present petition the petitioners has challenged the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision No. 2698 of 2023, District Amethi, Kadeer Ahmad and another Versus Sub Divisional Officer, Musafirkhana Amethi and others and also the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by Sub Divisional officer Musafirkhana, Tehseel Musafirkhabna, District Amethi i.e. opposite party no.2, passed in Appeal No. 2397 of 2022 Computer Case No. T202204710202397, under section 207 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006., in the light of compromise. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court by means of order dated 31.07.2025, court concerned was directed that if any such, compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. The compromise has been verified and the impugned orders passed in the aforesaid case may be set aside in view of the compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the petitioners as well as opposite party no. 4 have compromised the dispute out of court and now there is no dispute between the parties if the present writ petition is being Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjani Kumar Dvivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Chandra Pandey, Vipul Tripathi Kadeer Ahamad And Another .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru Chairman/Member And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) decided in terms of the compromise attached with this affidavit as Annexure No.A-1 and therefore both prays to this Court to decide the present writ petition on the basis of the compromise. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel have stated that they have no objection in case the aforesaid orders are quashed/ set aside in the light of the compromise. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash/ set aside the impugned orders as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the petitioners and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the petitioners to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the aforesaid impugned orders are quashed/ set aside. 10. Accordingly this writ petition stands disposed of. September 2, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 662 of 2024 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench