Honble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1 dated 11.6.1999 by which he has decided revision No. 1779, order dated 24.8.1999 by which he has rejected the restoration application of the petitioners and the order dated 4.10.1999 by which he has rejected the review applications.

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners’ father Geeta Ram was holder of chak No. 162 and after his death, the aforesaid chak devolved between his sons, namely, Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand, the present petitioners. Sri Abdul Haq was holder of chak No. 46 and after his death, his chak devolved between his three sons, namely, Tizwan, Ishtiyaq and Zahid Hasan, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

3. It appear that in the consolidation proceeding, Abdul Haq filed the objection. The petitioners were not made parties in the consolidation proceeding inasmuch as on the objection being filed by Abdul Haq, the petitioners had not been issued any notice. The objection of Abdul Haq was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.3.1994. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Abdul Haq filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Saharanpur. The Settlement Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.5.1995 rejected the appeal. It may be mentioned here that in the appeal the petitioners were not made parties. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.5.1995 Abdul Haq filed revision No. 185 of 1995. The said revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 26.2.1999 on the ground that in the memo of revision there was no signature of Abdul Haq. It has been further observed that Abdul Haq had two brothers. Brother Abdul Salam had compromised with Mahesh Chand and he had no objection. The sons of Abdul Haq filed an application for their impleadment. The Consolidation Officer was of the view that sons should file revision. Accordingly, revision was dismissed.

4. It appears that revision No. 1779 of 1999 was filed by the three sons of Abdul Haq. The copy of the memo of revision is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It reveals that Abdul Salam, Sadiq, Saddiq, Namoo, Asraf, Shakir, Abdul Salam, Mahesh, Rakesh and Riyasat were made parties. Suresh Chand was not made party. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.6.1999 allowed the revision in part. He has amended chak Nos. 46, 162, 45 and 268. Chak No. 162 belongs to the petitioners, Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand. When the petitioners came to know about the said order, they filed two separate applications for the recalling of the order dated 11.6.1999 along with two affidavits. In the applications, they stated that against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, revision No. 185 had already been dismissed and, therefore, the second revision was not maintainable. It was further submitted that notices of hearing had not been served and the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. Suresh Chand in the application had also stated that he was not made party in the revision and no notice whatsoever had been issued and served upon him while his chak No. 162 has been disturbed without giving opportunity. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 24.8.1999 rejected the restoration applications on the ground that notices were issued to Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand and it was served on Suresh Chand. Therefore, it is wrong to say that without notice the order was passed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that it was not an ex-parte order and, accordingly, he rejected both the applications. The petitioners filed review application which has also been rejected vide order dated 4.10.1999.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly Suresh Chand was not made party in the revision and no notice