Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioners, four in number and all sons of late Indra Pal alias Deshraj have filed this writ petition praying for the quashing of the judgment and order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1.

2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the said order has allowed revision of the private respondents and the order dated 7.11.2007 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal has been set aside and that passed by the Consolidation Officer has been maintained and confirmed.

3. The dispute relates to agricultural land of Khata Nos. 126, 127-Ba and 21-Aa. Petitioners claim that in the aforesaid land their father and now they themselves have 1/3rd share.

4. During the consolidation proceedings objections under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ‘Consolidation Act’) filed by Indra Pal, predecessor in interest of the petitioners came up for consideration before the Consolidation Officer and were decided vide order 26.12.1985. Aggrieved, Indra Pal, preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed on 10.4.1986. The said order was taken up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the aforesaid Indra Pal. The revision was allowed on 25.2.1987. The orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer were set aside, the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to frame a specific issue, whether Indra Pal alias Deshraj son of Makhan Singh is a co-tenure holder in Khata No. 127-B and to decide the matter thereafter in accordance with law.

5. In pursuance of the above remand order, Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of Indra Pal vide order dated 11.6.2007. However, in appeal No. 268 of 2007-08 preferred by petitioners, the order of the Consolidation Officer was set-aside and in all the three Khata Nos. 126, 127-Ba and 21-Aa petitioners were held to be co-owners to the extent of 1/3rd share. This order was assailed by the contesting respondents in revision which has been decided by the impugned order.

6. I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents.

7. Sri Jain has argued that on the day the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e. 3.7.2008 there was strike of lawyers and no lawyer had appeared before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The statement in the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he had heard both the lawyers is incorrect. The lawyer of the petitioners on knowing that the impugned judgment and order had been passed on the same very day filed an application for recalling the said order which was rejected on 7.8.2008. The order dated 3.7.2008 has actually been antedated. In such a situation, when the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners or their counsel, it ought to have been recalled, or at least the matter deserves to be remanded. He has also submitted that the revision has been allowed only on the ground that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act though the matter was required to be decided on merits as previously there was no issue regarding the proceedings being barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act.

8. Sri R.N. Singh in reply to the above arguments has submitted that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to appear and it is incorrect to state that counsel for the petitioners was not heard before passing the impugned order dated 3.7.2008. The story regarding strike of lawyers on the said date is being pleaded for the first time in the writ petition. No purpose would be served in remanding the matter as even on remand the result would remain the same, inasmuch as the present procee