JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgment of Sri D.D. Lal, District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda dated 21.2.1984. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the revisional court has disregarded the directions of this court contained in Annexure "4" attached with the writ petition. 3. The Second contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the revisional court has reviewed the order dated 11.6.1976 whereby the claim of the petitioners had been accepted and the contention of the petitioners regarding valuation had been confirmed even by this Court, hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revision petitions are to be heard on merits, hence the impugned order need not be interfered, with. He has also submitted that the petitioners shall get full opportunity to address the revisional court on merits of their revision petitions, hence the impugned order should not be interfered. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties the question of valuation regarding the plots of the appellants in revision could not be raised before the revisional court in proceedings arising under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Hence the observation made in the impugned judgment is correct and there should not be any interference with the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has invited my attention to the ruling reported in 1962 A.L.J. 888, Roop Narain v. State and others, and he has contended that the question of valuation could not be raised before the revisional court. In my opinion the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid ruling is based upon the provisions prior to the amendment of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 1963 hence the contesting opposite parties cannot derive any benefit out of the aforesaid ruling. 6. In my opinion the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid ruling is based upon the provisions prior to the amendment of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 1963 hence the contesting opposite parties cannot derive any benefit out of the aforesaid ruling. 6. The next ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties is reported in 1978 A.L.J. 777, Beni Madho Dubey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, wherein it has been indicated that in view of the provisions the question of valuation of the plots was beyond jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in an appeal pending before him arising out of allotment proceedings. Relying upon the dictum of law laid down in the aforesaid ruling the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has justified the impugned order and the complained observation by the petitioners which is to the following effect :- ""Uprokt vivechan se spasht hai ki maliyat mamley na to nigraniyon me uthaye gaye na kisi anya vidhik prakaran dwara hi aisa huwa. Atah maliyat ke sambandh me diya gaya nirdesh nyayochit nahin paratit hota." 7. In my opinion the revisional court in its order dated 21.2.1984 is not quite correct in making complained observations extracted above. 8. It is well known by now that in proceedings under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act a tenure holder can object about the correctness or incorrectness of the valuation of his plots but if he gets plots of other tenure-holders he can demonstrate that the valuation of those plots was not in accordance with law and needed change or modification. It appears that this aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the revisional court in the impugned order. The attention of the revisional court is directed to the provisions of Section 21 (4) of the U.P.C.H. Act wherein wide powers vest in the consolidation authorities to refuse the provisional consolidation scheme which includes the valuation of plots in the unit. Therefore, I think that the revisional court has not correctly made the extracted observation in the impugned order. The attention of the revisional court is also directed to the ruling reported in 1983 Revenue Reporter P. 432. Tarkeshwari Pandey and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others. 9. Therefore, I think that the revisional court has not correctly made the extracted observation in the impugned order. The attention of the revisional court is also directed to the ruling reported in 1983 Revenue Reporter P. 432. Tarkeshwari Pandey and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others. 9. The third ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties is reported in 1981 A.L.J. 252. Hari Narain Mani v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and another. It is sufficient to observe that the revisional court would keep in view the observations made in the aforesaid ruling while deciding the revision hereafter. 10. It is note-worthy that in my order dated 17.2.82 whereby the writ petition filed by Phool Chand Singh was allowed on the ground that he was not given a hearing, the following observations were made :- " Since the impugned order has been passed without properly hearing the petitioner and in that event if that stand has been taken, it can be treated an order not set in the eye of law against the petitioner. I quash the impugned judgment so far as it relates to claim of the petitioner. The revisional court would hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order after hearing him. It is made clear that the petitioner has not impleaded the heirs of opposite party no. 43 in the present writ petition on the ground that he was not a necessary party, hence at his instance the chak of the heirs of opposite party no. 43 should not be disturbed by the revisional court." 11. In the impugned order the revisional court has made the following observations;- " .....Up Sanchalak Chakbandi ke adesh me kewal maliyet ke mamley ko tay kiya gaya tha jisme manniya Uchcha Nyayalay ne Phool Chand ke virudh (non-est) karar kiya hai. Yadi maliyat Sri Phool Chand ke virudh (non-est) hai to woh anya prakshkaron ke viprit bhi (non existent) hi hoga. Is tark me kafi bal pratit hota hai kyonki prastut mamley me Sector 3 WA 4 ki maliyat badley to chain re-action hoga jis se samast khatedar prabhavit honge. Atah prastut prasang "me is tark me kafi bal hai aur mai is se sahmat hun". 12. Is tark me kafi bal pratit hota hai kyonki prastut mamley me Sector 3 WA 4 ki maliyat badley to chain re-action hoga jis se samast khatedar prabhavit honge. Atah prastut prasang "me is tark me kafi bal hai aur mai is se sahmat hun". 12. In view of the above observations of the revisional court it appears necessary to me that it was the duty of the revisional court to have considered the question whether any relief could be granted to Phool Chand in the absence of the heirs of opposite party No 43 who were not impleaded in the writ petition and whether their chak would be disturbed or not due to chain re-action in granting relief to Phool Chand. However, the revision petitions are to be decided on merits hereafter. I do not express any final opinion in this regard, but I make it clear to the revisional court to address itself to the question of laches or omission on the part of Phool Chand is not impleading the heirs of chak holder no. 43 within reasonable time. 13. Though some of the observations made in the impugned order do not appear to me quite correct, but yet I do not consider it a fit case for interference at this stage. At the time of the admission of the writ petition both the parties have appeared before me and after hearing them I have tried to clear the legal position and I except that the revisional court shall decide the claims of the parties after hearing them strictly in accordance with law. 14. In this result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine, but it is expected that the revisional court shall keep in view the observations made above and decide the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law after according them reasonable opportunity of hearing.