JUDGMENT Honble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Baghpat/Meerut (respondent No. 1). 2. It appears that against the order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Writ Petition before this Court, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19456 of 2004. 3. It further appears that by the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by this Court, the said writ petition, filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, was dismissed. 4. Thereupon a Review Application being Review Application No. 147981 of 2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 5. By the order dated 5.1.2007, the said Review Application, filed on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, was disposed of. 6. Copy of the said order dated 5.1.2007 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Relevant portion of the said order dated 5.1.2007 is reproduced below : "........................Bhanwar Singh wants plot No. 763. Applicants Ramesh and Randhir to whom the said plot has been allotted want to get rid of the said plot. In this happy situation the best possible solution is to direct the D.D.C. to allot plot No. 763 to Bhanwar Singh and compensate Ramesh and Randhir by alloting them almost equivalent parcel of land, out of the land allotted to Bhanwar Singh. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut with strict direction that he must confine himself only and only to plot No. 763 and some portion of land which has been allotted to Bhanwar Singh in order to consider the exchange. Every effort shall be made to give plot No. 763 along with Tube Well to Bhanwar Singh and in exchange almost equal parcel of land of Bhanwar Singh shall be given to Ramesh and Randhir. No other plot or no other aspect of the matter shall be touched by the D.D.C........" 7. It further appears that on an Application dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition), the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) passed an order dated 18.5.2007, which is as under : ÞmHk; i{kksa dks lquk x;k vfxze vknskksa rd ;Fkk fLFkfr cuk;s j[kh tk;AÞ 8. It further appears that on an Application dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition), the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) passed an order dated 18.5.2007, which is as under : ÞmHk; i{kksa dks lquk x;k vfxze vknskksa rd ;Fkk fLFkfr cuk;s j[kh tk;AÞ 8. Thereafter, it appears that on 6.6.2007, the matter was taken-up by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1). On the said date, besides the petitioners and the contesting respondents, other cultivators of the village also appeared. It was submitted by the said other cultivators that on account of the said status-quo order dated 18.5.2007, the staff was not conducting measurement of other chaks in the village. 9. Thereupon, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No.1) passed the said order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) modifying the said status-quo order dated 18.5.2007 in the light of the directions given by this Court in the said order dated 5.1.2007. 10. Relevant portion of the said order dated 6.6.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) is reproduced below : Þ-------- muds bl dFku ij esjs }kjk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k vkSj i{kksa dks lquk Hkh x;k esjs LFkxu vknsk fnukad 18-5-2007 ls gh Li"V gS fd pwafd fuxjkuh esa lquokbZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsk ds vuqikyu esa ,d fufnZ"V lhek rd gh dh tk jgh gS blfy, ;g LFkxu vknsk xkVk la[;k 763 uydwi lfgr tks Hkaoj flag dks nh tkuh gS ,oa mlds cnys Hkaoj flag dh tks tehu jesk o ju/khj dks nh tkuh gS rd gh ÁHkkoh gSA vknsk dh ,d Áfr pdcUnh vf/kdkjh] ckxir dks mDrkuqlkj vuqikyu gsrq Hksth tkosaAÞ 11. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 12. I have heard Shri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners at length, and perused the record. 13. It is submitted by Shri Shukla that the impugned order dated 6.6.2007 whereby the status-quo order dated 18.5.2007 has been modified, will cause great hardship to the petitioners. It is further submitted by Shri Shukla that consequent to the order dated 6.6.2007, the petitioners would be rendered landless. 14. I have considered the submissions made by Shri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, and I find myself unable to accept the same. 15. It is further submitted by Shri Shukla that consequent to the order dated 6.6.2007, the petitioners would be rendered landless. 14. I have considered the submissions made by Shri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, and I find myself unable to accept the same. 15. In my opinion, the order dated 6.6.2007 whereby the status quo order dated 18.5.2007 has been modified is fully in consonance with the directions given in the order dated 5.1.2007. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 6.6.2007. No interference is, therefore, called for with the said order dated 6.6.2007. 16. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 17. However, it is observed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) will proceed to decide the matter in question after hearing the concerned parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. ———