JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this application the applicants have prayed for recalling the order dated 3-8-1983. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicants before me is that I have expressed about the illegality of the order dated 27-10-70 contained in Annexure `2' attached with the writ petition. 3. The writ petition had arisen out of proceedings for setting aside the order dated 27-10-1970. The Consolidation Officer had rejected the application through his order dated 29-12-1978 and in revision the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside through the order dated 10-4-1980 and the case was sent back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made in that judgment. Against the order of the revisional authority the applicants had approached this Court under A i tide 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition has been dismissed by me through the order dated 3rd August, 1983. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants contends that I have patently erred in observing about the illegality of the order contained in Annexure `2' attached with the petition. According to him unless the observations made by me are expunged, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and the application dated 25-10-1978 would be allowed and this Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to comment about the order dated 27-10-70 in the circumstances of the present case. 5. The second contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had committed an error on the face of the record in remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer after condoning the delay in moving the application for setting aside the order contained in Annexure 2', attached with the writ petition, and I have also failed in not answering the contention raised on behalf of the applicants. 6. I have again given my thoughts to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. 7. 6. I have again given my thoughts to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error in not addressing himself to the question as to whether the delay in moving the application for setting aside the order contained in Annexure `2' was sufficiently explained or not and that I have also failed to answer the contention in this regard it is sufficient to indicate that when the delay had been condoned and the case has been sent back to the Consolidation Officer for dealing with other points it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere with the impugned order. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view if I have not said any thing specifically I think that I have not committed any patent error in dismissing the writ petition on that ground. 8. As regards the applicants contention that certain observations made by me need to be expunged I think it proper to clarify that when the Consolidation Officer decides the merits of the restoration application in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he would decide the contention of the parties without being moved by any observation made by me regarding the order contained in Annexure `2'. The scope of the controversy between the parties on the application dated 25-10-1978 is quite different from the question regarding illegality of the order contained in `Annexure `2'. If the opposite party does not make out a ground for setting aside the order contained in Annexure `2' on the ground taken in the application even if the order is illegal order, it would have its force. It is well known that illegal and erroneous order also operate as res judicata between the parties. From that stand-point 1 do not feel any necessity to expunge the observations made by me in the order dated 3-8-1983 regarding the order contained in Annexure `2' attached with writ petition. 9. I have every reason to believe that the Consolidation Officer shall decide the claims of the parties in accordance with law after giving proper opportunities to the parties and without being moved by any irrelevant consideration. 10. In the result, the application fails and is accordingly rejected.