JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned counsel for private respondent No.5.

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the restoration application filed on behalf of contesting respondents, vide order dated 13.9.2022, against the previous order dated 13.12.2005. Petitioners are aggrieved as well with the order dated 4.1.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which restoration application filed by them against the order dated 13.9.2022 has been rejected.

3. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the present writ petition is arising out of restoration application filed in the reference proceeding. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed order dated 24.8.1985 in appeal, arising out of proceeding under Section 21(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, filed on behalf of respondent No.5 proposing the entire area of his original holding i.e. plot No.216 in his chak. Said order became final up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that at subseq