Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87742 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2080 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra And 5 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shahroze Khan Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Sahroze Khan, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.4 to 7 is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sahorze Khan, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 7 and Mr. Satyendra Bhushan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Respondent nos.8 to 11 are stated to be proforma respondents, as such, notices to respondent nos.8 to 11 are dispensed with. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is heard finally without inviting counter affidavit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that chak appeal filed by private respondent nos.3 to 7 was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 12.11.2020. Against the appellate order dated 12.11.2020 revision was filed by the private respondents before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No.0102/2021. The aforementioned revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.10.2023. Against the order dated 25.10.2023, a time barred restoration application dated 27.2.2024 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 12.4.2024. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide subsequent order dated 9.1.2025 allowed the revision in part and disturbed the petitioners' chak. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar (Annexure No.9 of the writ petition) and to restore the Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the chak revision filed by the private respondents was dismissed in default on 25.10.2023. He further submitted that the time barred restoration application filed by the private respondents was allowed in ex-parte manner. He further submitted that the revision was also allowed in ex-parte manner without any notice and opportunity of hearing to petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners' father-Kanik Ram has expired on 18.6.2024 and without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, revision has been allowed on merit, which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the impugned revisional order should be set aside and the order passed in appeal should be affirmed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sahroze Khan, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 7 submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed in the allotment of chak proceeding. He further submitted that under the impugned order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned that both parties have been heard, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submitted that even on merit, the adjustment has been made according to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as such, no interference is required. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the chak revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed in default but on the restoration application, the revision has been restored to its original number without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioners' father has expired after allowing the restoration application but without filing proper substitution application, revision has been allowed on merit without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 9. Considering the fact that no substitution application has been filed in the pending chak revision in respect to the deceased Kanik Ram as well as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to petitioners before disturbing their chak under the impugned order dated 9.1.2025, the impugned order dated 9.1.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained in the eye of law & the same is hereby set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed in part and matter is remitted back before respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar to register the Revision No.10/ 24 on its original number and decide the same afresh on merit after substituting the legal heirs of deceased Kanik Ram inviting substitution application from the revisionist expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It is further directed that so far as the restoring the revision on its original number vide order dated 12.4.2024 is concerned, the same is affirmed and the revision shall be decided on merit as directed above. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad