JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - The facts necessary for the decision of this petition lie within a narrow compass. In course of consolidation of holdings undertaken with regard to the village in question, a dispute arose between the petitioners on one hand and the contesting respondents no. 2 to 7 on the other with regard to their respective shares therein. The matter was examined by the Consolidation Officer who initially held in favour of the contesting respondents by his order dated 13-1-1973. According to this order the contesting respondents' branch had half share in the disputed land while the remaining half belonged to the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order which was allowed by the Settlement Officer and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer who passed a fresh order dated 26-12-79. According to this latter order the share of the petitioners' branch was th while one fourth belonged to the contesting respondents' branch. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by way of an appeal by the contesting respondents which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer consolidation by an order dated 20-12-1980. Aggrieved by that order the contesting respondents filed a revision which was also dismissed by an order dated 6-5-81. Thus the shares of the parties' branches as redetermined finally were held to be respectively th and one fourth. 2. Meanwhile in pursuance of the earlier order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13-1-73. Chaks of the parties had carved out. Consequently when the order dated 13-1-73 was set aside under the orders mentioned above the petitioners moved an application on 20-1-86 under Section 48-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act setting out the history of the case and making a request that the orders passed by the consolidation Authorities redetermining the shares of the parties, be implemented. This application has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by an order dated 18-9-86 which is the subject of challenge in the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to have completely misunderstood the precise request made by the petitioners. This application has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by an order dated 18-9-86 which is the subject of challenge in the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to have completely misunderstood the precise request made by the petitioners. The petitioners were not challenging the order dated 6-5-81 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but were really seeking the implementation thereof under Section 48-B. Simply put their request was that the shares of the parties having been subsequently altered as a result of adjudication made by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the chaks initially allotted to the parties in accordance with the first order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 13-1-73 were liable to be readjusted bringing them in accord with the shares of the parties as redetermined. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was hence clearly wrong in thinking that the petitioners were challenging the order dated 6-5-81. He should have issued appropriate directions for readjustment of the chaks as contemplated by Section 48-B. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation should, therefore, re-examine the matter and issue necessary orders in accordance with law keeping in view the shares as redetermined. 5. Sri S.D. Pathak learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the village had been denotified under Section 52 prior to the making of the petitioners' application, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On behalf of the petitioners an affidavit has been filed stating that till March 1987 the village had not been denotified. It is, however, not possible to give any definite finding as regards whether the village had been denotified or not or if it has been denotified the date on which it was denotified. It is apparent that if the village had not been denotified on the date on which the application was moved by the petitioner, it will have to be disposed of as if the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act continues to operate in regard to present matter. 6. I may mention that this court has not determined the shares of the parties and consequently any observation made herein with regard to the extent of parties' share should not be taken as a finding as to the extent of shares. 6. I may mention that this court has not determined the shares of the parties and consequently any observation made herein with regard to the extent of parties' share should not be taken as a finding as to the extent of shares. All that this court has decided is that the chaks should be recarved in accordance with the shares of the parties as finally determined by the orders of the Consolidation Authorities. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18-9-86 is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation will now proceed to dispose of the petitioners' application in accordance with law in the light of observation made in the judgment. No order as to Costs.