ORDER S.N. Dwivedi, J. - The dispute relates to a grove. At one time certain persons were co-grove holder of the grove. Behari Lal who filed this petition and after his death is now represented by his legal representatives purchased the share of some of them. Some of the others sold their share to Mauji Ram and others, the Respondents. Both sales were effected sometime in 1954 and 1955. Both vendees applied for mutation of their names. The application of Behari Lal was allowed while that of Mauji Ram and others was rejected. It appears that at the stage of the consolidation proceedings u/s 8 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood before 1958 the name of Behari Lal alone was entered as the sole grove holder of the entire grove. Chhotey Singh and others filed an objection u/s 12 of the Act. It was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 'he ground that no such objection could be made u/s 12 in respect of a grove. Mauji Ram and others did not file any objection u/s 12 and subsequently they filed an application which was treated as an objection u/s 20 of the Act. It was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was barred by Section 12(7) of the Act. It appears that two revisions were then filed. One was filed by Chhotey Singh and others and the other by Mauji Ram and others. Both of them were dismissed by the Dy. Director in October 1958. While dismissing the revisions the Deputy Director incidentally remarked that the remedy for the Applicants was to file a proper application u/s 5(a) of the Act which would be heard on merits. After that order Chhotey Singh and others and Mauji Ram and others moved the Consolidation Officer u/s 5(a). The Consolidation Officer rejected the applications on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain them. His order was upheld in appeal by the Settlement Officer. In revision, however, the Deputy Director had reversed the order and directed the Consolidation Officer to entertain the applications of the two parties u/s 5(a). 2. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation, Behari. Lal filed this petition. As already stated, he died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 3. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation, Behari. Lal filed this petition. As already stated, he died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 3. No steps were taken to serve the notice of the writ petition on Chhotey Singh Respondent No. 10. Notices of the petition were served on his brothers, the Respondents 11, 12 and 13. Office reported about want of service on Chhotey Singh on March 21, 1966. Two weeks were granted for taking steps to serve him. No steps were, however, taken to serve during the time granted. On May 16, 1966 office reported again. On May 29, 1966 the case was listed before the Deputy Registrar. No one appeared before him and he directed that the petition should be listed for disposal before the Court with the report that Chhotey Singh was not served with the notice of the petition for want of prosecution. 4. Counsel for the Petitioners has prayed for time to enable him to take steps to serve Chhotey Singh. I am not inclined to grant time for that purpose. Time had already been granted for that purpose but no steps were taken. The petition is a very old one. 5. As Chhotey Singh was not served, the petition against the order of the Deputy Director on the revision of Chhotey Singh and others cannot be heard. To that extent it is dismissed. 6. I shall now take up the Petitioners case with regard to the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation regarding the revision of Mauji Ram and others. 7. Mauj Ram and others did not file any objection u/s 12, so they could not file an objection u/s 20 regarding their interest in the grove. The Deputy Director rightly dismissed their first revision. He had wrongly made an incidental remark in his order that Mauji Ram and others could make the application u/s 5(a). No such application could be made u/s 5(a) in order to determine the rights of Mauji Ram and others in the grove. An application u/s 5(a) can be made for correction of papers. A proceeding for correction of papers is decided ordinarily on the basis of the possession of parties, but it seems that Mauji Ram really wants to reopen the question of his title in that proceeding. That cannot be done. An application u/s 5(a) can be made for correction of papers. A proceeding for correction of papers is decided ordinarily on the basis of the possession of parties, but it seems that Mauji Ram really wants to reopen the question of his title in that proceeding. That cannot be done. Accordingly the order of the Deputy Director allowing the revision is without jurisdiction. 8. I allow the petition and quash the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation allowing the revision of Mauji Ram and others. The Petitioners shall get their costs from Mauji Ram and others.