ORDER R. M. Sahai, J. -An important question arises for consideration in this writ petition directed against order of Deputy Director, Consolidation, whether the revision filed by petitioners could be dismissed as not maintainable because earlier revision filed by opposite party against part of the order had already been decided. The dispute between parties was in respect of share in Khata Nos. 79A and 79B. The petitioners claimed 3/4 plus .26 acres whereas opposite party No. 3 claimed that he had 1/2 minus .14 acres and opposite party No. 4 claimed .14 acres. The Consolidation Officer accepted petitioners and opposite parties claims and adjusted share accordingly. In appeal the order in respect of opposite party No. 4 was maintained but the share of petitioners was held to be 1/2 minus .40 acres. Both parties filed revision. The revision of opposite party was dismissed on 2nd August, 1971. The revision of petitioners came up for hearing in 1978. It was dismissed as it related to share and the same having been determined finally on 2nd August 1971 it could not be done again. 2. In doing so the Deputy Director appears to have committed manifest error of law. The scope of two revisions was entirely different. They were directed against part of the order which was against them and not against the party which was in their favour. The subject-' matter of two revisions was thus different. The legality, propriety and correctness of part which was to be considered in revision filed by opposite party related to the determination of petitioners share which could be altered, reduced or enhanced. For instance opposite party was given 1/2 minus .40 acres. He was aggrieved against it and desired more from what was allotted to petitioners. The Deputy Director could reduce petitioners share and increase that of opposite party. But he could not direct any alteration or modification in 1/2 minus .40. The effect of dismissal of revision was that petitioners share as determined by the appellate authority was found to be correct. It did not need any modification, therefore it attained finality. But this could not affect petitioners revision which was directed against allotment of 1/2 minus .40 acres to opposite party. The effect of dismissal of revision was that petitioners share as determined by the appellate authority was found to be correct. It did not need any modification, therefore it attained finality. But this could not affect petitioners revision which was directed against allotment of 1/2 minus .40 acres to opposite party. The correctness of this had not been examined in revision filed by opposite party therefore any decision given therein could not prevent petitioners from challenging nor was the Deputy Director debarred from examining it on principle of finality. 3. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation dated 27th January, 1973 is quashed. He is directed to decide the revision afresh on merits in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. The dispute in respect of opposite party No. 4 however has become final and shall not be reopened.