JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated March 27, 1980 and; August 30, 1980 contained in Annexures III and V attached with petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the order dated March 27, 1980 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence the same deserves to be quashed and that the revisional court has patently erred in observing that the petitioner had been heard and the order dated March 27, 1980 had been passed on merits in his order dated August 30, 1980. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the opposite party No. 4 Piyare in the present writ petition has died in the year 1981, hence the present writ petition deserves dismissal as abated. 4. Second submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite parties is that the petitioner's brother Piyare was heard, hence the impugned orders cannot be quashed in the present proceedings, in this connection he haS placed reliance upon the ruling reported in Syed Mohammad Riyal v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1971 R.D. 305. 5. Third submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite parties is that in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was heard and since no rejoinder affidavit has been filed, hence the contention of the petitioner that he was not heard should not be accepted and the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Last submission made on behalf of contesting opposite parties is that even-if the petitioner was not heard by the revisional court the petitioner should have approached the revisional court for getting the order dated March 27, 1980 set aside and as an alternative remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner, the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the impugned judgment and I have also gone through the application for setting aside the order dated March 27, 1980. The petitioner is signatory to the application as is evident from Annexure "IV" attached with the writ petition. The perusal of the impugned judgments indicates that the revisional court has patently erred in not addressing itself to the claim of the petitioner Hari Ram. The petitioner is signatory to the application as is evident from Annexure "IV" attached with the writ petition. The perusal of the impugned judgments indicates that the revisional court has patently erred in not addressing itself to the claim of the petitioner Hari Ram. While the revisional court has dismissed the application for setting aside the order in revision dated March 27, 1980 it has not categorically held that the petitioner Hari Ram was heard when the revision petition was decided. For the sake of argument even if Piyare was heard and if no notice of the revision petition was issued or served upon Hari Ram the latter had a right to get the order dated March 27, 1980 set aside. I have a feeling after going through the materials on record that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the revision petition tiled by the opposite party Ram Naraiyan, hence the order dated March 27, 1980 was in violation of the principles of natural justice and on that ground alone it is liable to be quashed. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties is no longer good law. The aforesaid ruling has been over ruled by a later Division Bench, hence the opposite parties cannot derive any benefit out of the ruling cited by them. 8. As regards the submission that opposite party No. 4 Piyare is dead hence the writ petition should be dismissed as abated, it is sufficient to observe that Pyare is a proforma opposite party in the present writ petition. If the writ petition is allowed, there would not be any contradictory judgment because the order passed in the writ petition would ensue to the benefit of Piyare also. The heirs of Piyare can be brought on record before the revisional court. It is no use adjourning the present writ petition for bringing the heirs of Piyare on record with a view to remove technical defect. Since the heirs of a deceased party can be brought on record within three years from the date of death in the revision petition. I think that on this ground the writ petition cannot be thrown and it would be open to the opposite party No. 3 Ram Narayan to bring the heirs of Piyare on record of his revision petition when the case goes back. I think that on this ground the writ petition cannot be thrown and it would be open to the opposite party No. 3 Ram Narayan to bring the heirs of Piyare on record of his revision petition when the case goes back. As regards the third submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, on materials before me it is clear that the petitioner has said on affidavit that no notice of the revision was served upon the petitioner nor was he a party in the revision petition filed by the opposite party Ram Narayan in the present writ petition. While dealing with the claim of the petitioner the revisional court has not specifically arrived at the conclusion that petitioner was really heard by the revisional court. The mere oath against oath in the present case would not be sufficient to throw the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit vide paragraph 13 it has been emphasised that the petitioner and his brother Piyare were parties before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and notices were served on them and they had full knowledge of the entire proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and they were also aware of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The allegations to the contrary in the paragraph under reply were denied. It has been stressed before me that in view of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit Annexure if attached with the writ petition would not be correct copy. In the circumstances of this case I am not prepared to accept that Annexure. It is incorrect copy of the revision petition. If incorrect copy had been attached with the writ petition, the contesting opposite parties should have attached the correct copy with the counter affidavit. I am unable to believe in the present case that the petition was a party hi the revision petition. When Annexure II negatives that claim and if he was not a party it is impossible to believe that any notice was served upon him and he was heard, I think that the contention of the petitioner is correct in this regard that he was neither a party in the revision petition nor was be heard by the revisional court when the order dated March 27, 1980 was passed. 9. As regards the last submission the writ petition was admitted on December 24, 1980. 9. As regards the last submission the writ petition was admitted on December 24, 1980. It is now well settled that an alternative remedy is not an absolute her to entertainment of a writ petition, hence I am not inclined to accept the suggestion of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the present writ petition should be thrown on the ground of an alternative remedy specially when the impugned order passed by the revisional court is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated March 27, 1980 is here by quashed. When the revisional Court's judgment dated March 27, 1980 is quashed, the order dated August 30. 1980 passed by the revisional court rejecting the application for setting aside the order dated March 27, 1980 at the instance of the petitioner shall fall through. The revision petition filed by the contesting opposite party Ram Narayan shall be heard and decided by the revisional court after impleading petitioner Hari Ram and affording him reasonable opportunity to contest the claim of Ram Narayan. The revisional court would also give opportunity to the applicant in revision to implead the heirs of Piyare in the revision petition so that the claim of the applicant in revision may be decided effectively. The revisional court shall decide the revision petition within two months from the receipt of the order of this Court. Parties are directed to bear their even costs. 11. Office shall give a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties within a week on receipt of usual charges.