Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing for respondent No. 3, who is contesting respondent in both the writ petitions.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3 is only contesting party and other respondents being proforma respondents, the writ petition be decided without service to notice to other respondents.

3. Both the writ petitions raise similar question of law and facts and are being decided finally by this common judgment by consent of the parties.

4. These two writ petitions pray for quashing the order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in objection filed by respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 58671 of 2007 is being treated as leading case.

5. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; respondent No. 3, Murlidhar, filed a belated objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19