ORDER K.M. Dayal, J. - The present petition had been filed challenging the orders of the consolidation authorities. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and Smt. Brijrani were co-tenure-holders in Khata No. 7. In Khata Nos. 2 and 9 they were co-tenure-holders with certain other persons. The consolidation operations started under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 as amended up to 1963 earlier. The case was decided by the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the aforesaid Act was decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 16th March, 1964. Against that order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioners which was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. During the pendency of that revision the notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was cancelled under Section 6 thereof. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation in spite of the cancellation, decided the revision on 16th July, 1964. Subsequently the matter seems to have remained as such whereupon fresh consolidation operations started in the year 1970. Again objections were filed by the petitioners claiming that Smt. Brijrani had remarried in the year 1961, that after the remarriage she had left the village and she might have died or she had not been heard for 7 or 8 years and lastly that the petitioners have matured their rights by adverse possession against Smt. Brijrani. They led their evidence on the question of remarriage, on the question of abandonment/death of Smt. Brijrani and adverse possession. Their claim was that the present opponent was one Smt. Rajji who was sister of Brijrani. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided the case against the petitioner. A revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act was filed against that order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the evidence led by the petitioners about re-marriage was futile and could not be looked into as in the previous litigation under the consolidation proceedings it was held that Smt. Brijrani had not re-married in the year 1961. He did not decide the case on the basis of the evidence before him in that respect. 2. He did not decide the case on the basis of the evidence before him in that respect. 2. So far as second question was concerned, he held that the lady who was contesting the case, was not Smt. Rajji but was Smt. Brijrani. On the third question he held that ouster of cotenure-holder Smt. Brijrani was not proved as required by law, and therefore, no adverse possession could be matured by the petitioners. So far the findings the second and third question are concerned, there are the findings of fact and are binding in writ petition so far as the question about the binding nature of the decision in the previous consolidation peration is concerned, in my opinion, the consolidation authorities have erred. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, reads as under: "(2) Where a (notification) has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1) such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to he under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation." According to this section if any final order was passed on or before the date of cancellation that would have been binding. In the instant case I find that the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was passed on 16th March, 1964 against which a revision was pending. The cancellation itself having been made on 9th July, 1964, and the dismissal of the revision on 16th July 1964 was subsequent to the cancellation, therefore, this proceeding could not be binding on the parties. The Consolidation authorities were bound to decide the case of the parties on the basis of the evidence before them in that respect. They could not have based their findings on the basis of the evidence led in the previous consolidation operations which had been cancelled before any final order, could be passed. 3. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation so far as it relates to re-marriage of Smt. Brijrani, is quashed. He is directed to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the evidence led in the present proceedings in accordance with law and observations made above. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.