JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 18-08-1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation purporting to be on the restoration application filed by Jawahar, chalk Holder 304, Respondent No. 3. Earlier a number of revisions were filed including revision No. 243/19, filed by Parmoli, Respondent No. 2 and Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioners and others. Similarly revision No. 114/195 was filed by Phul Singh against Jawahar etc. and Revision No. 58/138 was filed by Ram Khilari against Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 in the present petition. Other revisions were also filed and they were consolidated and heard together by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the revision was substantially allowed by Order dated 18-03-1978. In the second part of the order an observation was made that after hearing the parties and after perusing relevant field book and village papers, the revisions were being disposed of. The restoration application was filed by Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 just by stating that on the notice his signature was not there and he was not heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record a finding as to whether the notice was actually effected on him or not, or whether he made his signature thereon or not rather allowed the revision just by stating that in the interest of justice he considers it proper to hear the parties again. The said order was passed on 18-08-1979 and against this order the present petition has been filed. 2. I have heard Sri R.S. Dubey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. However, inspire of service no body appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 3. Sri Dubey urged that when the revision was decided by Order dated 18-03-1978 the parties were heard and an observation to that effect was also made in the order. He referred to Nahar Singh v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut 1983 ALJ 391 , State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1249 and Union of India (UOI) Vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 . It was further urged that unless a finding was recorded that Respondent No. 3 Jawahar was not heard or that the notice was not served on him at all, or that he did not engage a counsel, the restoration application cannot be allowed. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 . It was further urged that unless a finding was recorded that Respondent No. 3 Jawahar was not heard or that the notice was not served on him at all, or that he did not engage a counsel, the restoration application cannot be allowed. It has further been stated in Para 10 of the writ petition that Chak holder No. 304 was heard and that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 engaged one Sri Rama Kant, Advocate. In Para 12 of the petition it has been stated that Ram Hari was the process server who served the notice on Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 and has obtained his thumb impression and signature. In this view of the matter it was urged that there was no justification for recalling the Order dated 18-03-1978. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I am of the opinion that the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be said to be without substance. When the earlier Order dated 18-03-1978 was passed, an observation was made that the parties have been heard. If a court or an authority while delivering the judgment makes an observation about the facts, that has to be accepted as correct by the appellate court and in case somebody disputes that the observation was incorrect, he should make an application to that very authority or the Court and unless that authority itself agrees that the observation was incorrect, that observation cannot be said to be without any substance. In the instant case also unless the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that the observations made in Para 12 of the writ petition that the parties were heard was incorrect, it cannot be assumed that that observation was incorrect. 5. Further the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the restoration application did not record a finding that no notice was served on Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 nor the process server was examined by Respondent No. 3 nor there was any finding recorded that the notice was not effected on Jawahar, Respondent No. 3 nor he was heard at all. In paras 10 and 12 of the writ petition it has been stated that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had engaged one Rama Kant as their counsel and that Ram Hari was the process server. In paras 10 and 12 of the writ petition it has been stated that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had engaged one Rama Kant as their counsel and that Ram Hari was the process server. No Counter, affidavit has been filed to the writ petition, hence I have to accept the allegations made in paras 10 and 12 of the writ petition that Sri Rama Kant was the counsel representing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they were heard and that Ram Hari was the process server, who had served the notice on Jawahar, Respondent No. 3. The procedure for service of notice has been given in Rule 58(2) provides that at the time of delivering a document or effecting service, I the signature or thumb impression of the person on whom the notice is effected, shall be obtained and record of service shall be maintained in C.H. Form 31. The notice in the instant case was effected on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in view of the procedure prescribed Under Rule 58 of the Rules. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record any finding that the procedure prescribed Under Rule 58 was violated. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Nahar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut (Supra), State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak (Supra), and Union of India v. T.R. Verma (Supra). The observations in those cases are to the effect that once an observation has been made in the order that has to be accepted as correct unless an application is filed before that very authority and it records a finding that the observations are incorrect and without any basis. In the instant case no such finding has been recorded even by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the observations made by his predecessor-in-office that the parties were heard, was incorrect, 6. There is one more important fact to be mentioned that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has stated that in the interest of justice he thinks that the earlier Order dated 18-03-1978 has to be set aside and the parties may be heard again. But no such power has been given to the Dr. Director of Consolidation to allow any restoration application or review application at his sweet will without following the procedure prescribed by law. But no such power has been given to the Dr. Director of Consolidation to allow any restoration application or review application at his sweet will without following the procedure prescribed by law. Once the revision has been decided after hearing the parties after serving notices on the interested parties, that order becomes final under the Act and there is no provision for review. At best a restoration application can be filed and that also can be allowed only after recording a finding that the notices were not served on the person aggrieved or that the procedure provided Under Rule 58 for serving notice on the tenure holders was not followed. Even there appears to be sufficient evidence that Sri Ramakant was engaged as counsel by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, hence the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in making the observation that in the interest of justice he wants to hear the parties again. Once the earlier Order dated 18-03-1978 passed in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has become final, there was no scope for setting aside that order just by making an observation that in the interest of justice he wanted to hear the parties again and to decide the revision afresh. This observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was arbitrary 'and was totally uncalled for. 7. In view of the- facts stated herein-above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order dated 18-08-1979 is hereby quashed. As the Respondents did not appear, there shall be no Order as to costs.