A.P. Sahi, J. —Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the supplementary affidavit filed today.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Gaon Sabha questioning the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.12.2008 whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondent No.4, who has transferred the land to respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 represented by Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha Advocate, has been allowed on the ground, that there was no occasion for the Settlement Officer Consolidation to have restored the appeal and to have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. However, a perusal of the revisional order also indicates that in view of the powers conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the UPCH Act, he has also entered into the merits of the main contention namely the dispute between the parties relating to the adoption of the respondent No.4 Shyam by the original tenure holder late Yadi Ram.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was in public interest that the appeal had been restored by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and that the matter ought to have been