JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26-8-74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut allowing the revision and remanding the matter to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to determine the compensation afresh in accordance with Rule 56 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. The possession was delivered under Section 28 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act). About the compensation payable in respect of the standing crops in accordance with Section 29 of the Act some resolution was passed and against that and also against some other orders the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. Obviously the petitioners were also affected by the impugned order but they were not made parties to the revision and similarly a number of other persons were also affected but they were also not made parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri K.B.L. Gaur appearing for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were affected by the impugned order and they were not made parties nor were heard nor ever served with any notice and the principles of natural justice were violated, Sri Rajvanshi appearing for the respondents of the other hand urged that the petitioners were not required to be made parties nor they were required to be heard and the impugned order was correct. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not without substance. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been averred that the petitioners were necessary parties and similarly other persons were a so affected by the impugned order. But they were not made parties nor where heard. In para 6 of the writ petition it has been alleged that principles of natural justice has been violated while passing the impugned order. In reply to paras 5 and 6 of the petition it has been alleged in para 7 of the counter affidavit that only those villagers who signed the aforesaid resolution were impleaded as opposite parties in the revision and the petitioners and other persons mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition were not the necessary parties and the principles of natural justice were not violated. In para 8 of the counter affidavit it has been alleged that no relief was claimed against the petitioners and principles of natural justice where not violated. The petitioners have alleged that they were affected by the impugned order. This has been stated in para 6 of the writ petition. This fact has not been specifically denied in para 8 of the counter affidavit rather it has been stated that the necessary parties would be heard by the Assistant Consolidation Officer alter the order of remand. The petitioners alleged that they were affected by the impugned order and also by the earlier proceedings about the award of compensation. In view of Section 29 of the Act the petitioners were necessary parties and in case the revision was fixed by opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 the petitioners ought to have been impleaded as parties and they ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order. The impugned order being against the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. 4. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-8-74 is hereby quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law and after impleading the petitioners as opposite parties and after serving notices on them. It is, however made clear that if so necessary the Deputy Director of Consolidation may also ask opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 to implead other persons mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition, who were likely to be affected by the impugned order and after hearing them, the revision should be decided. Under the circumstances, however, I make no order as to costs.