DEV KANT TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the quashing of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 20. 8. 1971. the judgment of the Assistant settlement Officer. Consolidation dated 4. 7. 1972, 21. 7. 1972 and 25. 9. 1972 and the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation dated 21. 2. 1975 and 7. 6. 1973 have been prayed for. ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to Khata No. 120 consisting of several plots situate in village Kaithapur pargana C hand a, district Sultanpur. During the basic year, the name of the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. namely, Nand Lal Singh and Dukhi Singh were recorded as Sirdars. Several objections were filed during consolidation operation before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, The original petitioner Nos. 1, 2. 4 and 6 have died and their legal heirs have been substituted. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, and several other persons have filed objections before the Assistant consolidation Officer. The claim of the petitioners with regard to plot Nos. 121, 924. 973. 1053, 1054, 1055, 1138 and 1199. was allowed and it was directed that the names of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 be expunged and the names of the petitioners be recorded. This order dated 20. 8. 1971 passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged by the petitioners in appeal No. 520. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 filed appeal No. 2040. Other aggrieved persons also filed appeal Nos. 1602 and 2110. The petitioners appeal No. 520 was adjourned from time to time and the last date fixed in the said appeal as 21. 8. 1973. When the petitioners attended the Court of settlement Officer, Consolidation on 21. 8. 1973, they came to know that their appeal was transferred to the office of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. When the petitioners reached the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, they were informed that the appeal No. 520 had been dismissed in default on 4. 7. 1972. The petitioners came to know, on the inspection of record, that by means of an order dated 16. 6. 1972, the Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation fixed 4. 7. 1972 on which date the appeal Nos. 520. 1602 and 2110 were dismissed in default while 6. 7. 1972 was fixed in appeal No. 2040. 7. 1972. The petitioners came to know, on the inspection of record, that by means of an order dated 16. 6. 1972, the Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation fixed 4. 7. 1972 on which date the appeal Nos. 520. 1602 and 2110 were dismissed in default while 6. 7. 1972 was fixed in appeal No. 2040. The said appeal No. 2040 was subsequently adjourned from time to time and on 21. 7. 1972, the said appeal was allowed. When the petitioners came to know on 21. 7. 1972 about the dismissal of their appeal, an application for restoration was filed. The said restoration application was, however, rejected on 25. 9. 1972 by the said Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The petitioners had simultaneously filed a revision No. 1752 before the Deputy Director. Consolidation against the order dated 21. 7. 1972 whereby the appeal of the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 was allowed. Another Revision No. 1862 was filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 against the order dated 21. 7. 1972. On 7. 6. 1973. the revision No. 1752 filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners should have filed revision against the order dated 25. 9. 1972 whereby the restoration application of the petitioners was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The revision of the petitioners was dismissed while the revision filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. On 7. 6. 1973. another Revision No. 2587 was filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Assistant settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 25. 9. 1972. On 21. 2. 1975, the said revision against the order dated 25. 9. 1972 was dismissed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. By the same order, another Revision No. 3045 filed against the order dated 15. 12. 1973 in appeal No. 2040 was allowed and the matter with regard to the plot Nos. 1130, 1132 and 1146 was allowed, and the order in appeal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, consolidation for disposal afresh. ( 3 ) THE original petitioners then filed present writ petition for quashing the orders passed by the deputy Director. Consolidation dated 21. 2. 1973 as contained in Annexure-11, the order dated 7. 6. 1973 as contained in Annexure-8. the order dated 25. 9. ( 3 ) THE original petitioners then filed present writ petition for quashing the orders passed by the deputy Director. Consolidation dated 21. 2. 1973 as contained in Annexure-11, the order dated 7. 6. 1973 as contained in Annexure-8. the order dated 25. 9. 1972 as contained in Annexure-7 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the order dated 21. 7. 1972 as contained in Annexure-4 and the order dated 4. 7. 1972 as contained in Annexure-3 and also the order of the (Assistant Settlement Officer) Consolidation dated 21. 7. 1972 as contained in the annexure-1. ( 4 ) NO counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 though power was filed on their behalf on 29. 4. 1997 by Sri Shekhar Srivastava, Advocate. ( 5 ) ARGUMENTS have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of Annexure-2, it is evident that appeal No. 520 was pending before the settlement Officer, Consolidation and the date 9. 8. 1972 was the last date fixed for in the said appeal. Annexure-3 on the other hand. shows that on 4. 7. 1972 more than one month prior to the date fixed, the matter was taken up by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation and the appeal No. 520 was. dismissed in default. Similarly, 2 other appeal Nos. 1602 and 2110 were also dismissed in default. By means of the same order, the learned Assistant Settlement Officer, consolidation adjourned the appeal No. 2040 which was connected to appeal Nos. 520, 1602 and 2110 and fixed the said appeal No. 2040 for hearing on 6. 7. 1972. ( 7 ) THIS order seems to be apparently illegal on the very face of it. There was no occasion for the assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to have dismissed the three appeals out of 4 connected appeals where he proposed to adjourn and in fact adjourned the fourth appeal for hearing on a subsequent date. The order dated 4. 7. 1972 dismissing the appeal Nos. 520, 1602 and 2110 is thus, liable to be quashed on this sole ground. ( 8 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioners that they never knew about 4. 7. The order dated 4. 7. 1972 dismissing the appeal Nos. 520, 1602 and 2110 is thus, liable to be quashed on this sole ground. ( 8 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioners that they never knew about 4. 7. 1972 as the date fixed in their appeal nor were they aware of the transfer of the said appeals from the office of Settlement officer, Consolidation to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the petitioners in this regard. Thus, for want of knowledge of the transfer of appeal Nos. 520, 1602, 2110 and 2040 to the Assistant Settlement Officer, consolidation and for want of knowledge of the date fixed in the said appeals as 4. 7. 1972, the order dated 4. 7. 1972 dismissing the appeal Nos. 520. 1602 and 2110 is untenable and illegal, and is liable to be quashed on this ground as well. ( 9 ) THUS, the order dated 4. 7. 1972 was liable to be set aside when an application for restoration was moved on behalf of the petitioners in respect of their appeal No. 520. The learned Assistant settlement Officer, Consolidation held that the application for restoration was not maintainable as the appeals were decided on merits on 21. 7. 1972 in appeal No. 2040, The order dated 25. 9. 1972 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation is also apparently illegal inasmuch as order dated 4. 7. 1972 was not an order passed on merits and the dismissal of the appeal Nos. 520. 1602 and 2110 was an order passed in default of the appellants. Thus, the order dated 25. 9. 1972 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation holding that the appeals were decided on merits, is liable to be quashed. ( 10 ) NO doubt the appeal No. 2040 was decided on 21. 7. 1972 by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation as if he was passing the order on merits. However, it is mentioned on page 3 of the order dated 21. 7. 1972 as contained in Annexure-1 that the opposite parties had not returned up and were absent inspite of the service of summons on them. The petitioners were the opposite parties in the said appeal No. 2040 and when they were absent. the arguments could not have been heard on their behalf and the observations of the learned Assistant Settlement Officer. 1972 as contained in Annexure-1 that the opposite parties had not returned up and were absent inspite of the service of summons on them. The petitioners were the opposite parties in the said appeal No. 2040 and when they were absent. the arguments could not have been heard on their behalf and the observations of the learned Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation that he had heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties is contradicted by the subsequent part of the same sentence wherein it is mentioned that they could not be heard as they did not appear. Still the learned Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, specifically mentioned that he decided the appeals on merits. The appeal No. 2040/71 was thus, not decided on merits rather, it was an ex parte judgment in appeal and ordinarily such a judgment could have been set aside by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation himself when he passed orders on restoration application as contained in the Annexure-7. The order dated 25. 9. 1972 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation holding that the appeals were decided on merits is thus, patently incorrect and as earlier has been observed, is liable to be quashed. ( 11 ) WHEN the order dated 21. 7. 1972 passed in appeal No. 2040 of 1971 was challenged by the petitioners in Revision No. 1752 and by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in Revision No. 1862. a strange reasoning has been given by the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation holding that since the restoration application was rejected on 25. 9. 1972, the order dated 21. 7. 1972 could not be revised. On the one hand, the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation dismissed the revision filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 thereby virtually setting aside the order dated 21. 7. 1972 requiring the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, to dispose of the controversy afresh. No injustice could have been caused, in these circumstances, if the revision filed by the petitioners was also allowed instead of dismissing it on technical and untenable grounds. Thus, the orders passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Revision No. 1752 is liable to be quashed to the extent of dismissal of the said revision. ( 12 ) WHEN on the suggestions contained in the order dated 7. 9. Thus, the orders passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Revision No. 1752 is liable to be quashed to the extent of dismissal of the said revision. ( 12 ) WHEN on the suggestions contained in the order dated 7. 9. 1973 of the Deputy Director, consolidation, the petitioners filed a Revision No. 2587, the said revision was dismissed by the deputy Director, Consolidation by means of the order dated 21. 2. 1975 on a technical ground of limitation. It is really strange that when the petitioners filed a revision against the order dated 21. 7. 1972, their revision was dismissed with a suggestion that the order dated 25. 9. 1972 rejecting the restoration application should have been challenged and when the revision against the order dated 25. 9. 1972 was filed, the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thus, the order dated 7. 6. 1972 passed in Revision No. 1752 and the order dated 21. 7. 1975 passed in revision No. 2587 have the effect of stopping the petitioners from having their say in the matter. ( 13 ) IT is really unfortunate that the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation firstly by his order dated 7. 6. 1973 allowed the revision of the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 but simultaneously dismissed the revision of the petitioner and again, by means of the order dated 21. 2. 1975, the revision No. 2587 filed by the petitioners was dismissed while the connected Revision No. 3045 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Assistant Settlement Officer, consolidation. ( 14 ) RIGHT from 4. 7. 1972, the petitioners have been denied an opportunity of being heard. Firstly, the petitioners were not informed about the transfer of their appeals to the Assistant Settlement officer, Consolidation secondly, the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed their appeal along with the two other appeals though 4th appeal connected to the petitioners appeal was adjourned to another day. was decided without hearing the petitioners in default. Thirdly, that the petitioners application for restoration was dismissed on wholly insufficient grounds and though their appeal had been dismissed in default it was held that since other connected appeal was decided on merits, the restoration application was not maintainable. Fourthly, though one of the 4 appeals was decided ex parte it was repeatedly held that it was a judgment on merits. Fourthly, though one of the 4 appeals was decided ex parte it was repeatedly held that it was a judgment on merits. Fifthly, when the revision was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25. 7. 1972, they were denied an opportunity of hearing with a suggestion that the order dated 25. 9. 1972 be challenged. Sixthly when they challenged the order dated 25. 9. 1972, their revision was dismissed on the ground of limitation though, in both the other revisions, the cases were remanded for rehearing but the similar opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners. ( 15 ) IN view of the above discussion, it is evident that it is a case of gross abuse of their powers by the Consolidation authorities and denial of opportunity to the petitioners is apparent on the face of record. ( 16 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. ( 17 ) THE writ petition is allowed. ( 18 ) THE order dated 4. 7. 1972 so far as it relates to the dismissal of appeal Nos. 520, 1602 and 2110 is concerned, is quashed. The order dated 21. 7. 1972 passed in appeal No. 2040 of 1971 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation is also quashed. The order dated 25. 9. 1972 as contained in Annexure-7 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation is also quashed. The orders passed by the Deputy Director. Consolidation dated 7. 6. 1973 as contained in Annexure-8 so far as it relates to dismissal of Revision No. 1752, Mata Prasad v. Nand Lal and the order dated 21. 2. 1975 passed by the Deputy Director. Consolidation as contained in Annexure-11 so far as it relates to dismissal of Revision No. 2587 are also quashed. ( 19 ) THE appeal Nos. 520, 1602. 2110 and 2040 are remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, consolidation for rehearing after affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned and to decide the same afresh. ( 20 ) IT has been stated by Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary. Advocate that the matters earlier remanded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation by means of the Annexures-8 and 11 are still pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. ( 20 ) IT has been stated by Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary. Advocate that the matters earlier remanded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation by means of the Annexures-8 and 11 are still pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Even if that is not so, all the parties concerned, who have filed appeals or are opposite parties in the said appeals, will be afforded an opportunity of hearning. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned Settlement Officer, consolidation, Sultanpur, on 13. 10. 1998. Since the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 have not filed counter-affidavit, no order is made as to costs. .