By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 7.4.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, order dated 13.1.1983 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and order dated 30.4.1978 passed by Consolidation Officer. 2. It is stated that the name of petitioner no.1 was recorded in basic year khatauni over Khata no.93 comprising of plot no.117 area 8 decimal and plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre, whereas the name of father of the petitioner no.2 was recorded over Khata no.131 comprising of plot no.53/8 area 1.46 acre of village-Khardeha Pargana-Katehar, Tehsil and District -Varanasi. The name of petitioner no.1 was recorded over the aforesaid plot on the basis of ex parte decree dated 25.3.1965 passed in Suit No.472 of 1964 u/s 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as " U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") Paras Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha and the name of father of the petitioner no.2 was recorded on the plot No. 53/8 area 1.46 Acre on the basis of ex parte decree dated 30.10.1964 passed in Suit No.199 of 1964 u/s 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act Ram Roop Vs. State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha. 3. Against the aforesaid basic year entries the Gaon Sabha had filed objections before Consolidation Officer u/s 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act for expunging the name of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 and against other persons whose names were wrongly recorded over the lands of Gaon Sabha. While deciding several objections filed by Gaon Sabha against aforesaid persons, the Consolidation Officer vide common judgment and order dated 30.4.1978 ordered that the name of Ram Roop father of petitioner no. 2 be expunged from the said plot No. 53/8 area 1.46 Acre and land be recorded as Banzar in Column no.5. So far as the plot no.117 is concerned it was ordered that name of Paras Nath, petitioner no.1 be expunged and land be recorded as Parti in Column no.5. So far as plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre is concerned, the Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection of Gaon Sabha and continued the name of petitioner no.1. The copy of aforesaid order is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. So far as plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre is concerned, the Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection of Gaon Sabha and continued the name of petitioner no.1. The copy of aforesaid order is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of consolidation officer the petitioner no.1 and Ram Roop, father of petitioner no.2 along with other aggrieved persons preferred appeals before Settlement Officer of Consolidation u/s 11 of U.P.C.H. Act. The appeals filed by the private persons were dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Gaon Sabha in respect of plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre was allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation while deciding 6 appeals jointly by a common judgment and order dated 13.1.1983. The copy of aforesaid judgment and order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation is on record as Annexure-7 of the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation the petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 and one Shiv Shanker Singh preferred three revisions before Deputy Director of Consolidation u/s 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which were decided jointly by a common judgment and order dated 7.4.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, whereby all the revisions have been dismissed and claim of petitioners has been rejected from the plots in dispute, hence this petition. The copy of aforesaid judgement and order is on record as Annexure-8 of the writ petition. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that initially the petitioner no.1 had filed a suit u/s 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act against State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha in respect of plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre of Khata No. 93 situated in village-Khardeha Pargana-Katehar, Tehsil and District -Varanasi, which was decreed ex parte on 25.3.1965 whereby the petitioner no.1 was declared sole sirdar over the aforesaid land. The copy of the judgment and order dated 25.3.1965 passed in the said suit is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is stated that against the aforesaid ex parte decree dated 25.3.1965 the Gaon Sabha had filed a restoration application on 10.6.1971 which was allowed and ex-parte decree was set aside, against which the petitioner no. The copy of the judgment and order dated 25.3.1965 passed in the said suit is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is stated that against the aforesaid ex parte decree dated 25.3.1965 the Gaon Sabha had filed a restoration application on 10.6.1971 which was allowed and ex-parte decree was set aside, against which the petitioner no. 1 filed revision, there upon the matter went up to the Board of Revenue and ultimately the Board of Revenue had abated the proceeding on account of commencement of consolidation proceeding in the village in question vide judgment and order dated 17.10.1974, against which the petitioner no.1 had preferred writ petition before this Court and this Court had remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the restoration application of Gaon Sabha, again afresh. Thereafter the restoration of Gaon Sabha was allowed by trial court, against which revision was filed by the petitioner no. 1 and the case went up to the Board of Revenue through reference thereupon vide judgement and order dated 16.9.1982 passed in reference no. 643 to 646 of 1972-73 the Board of Revenue had found that the order of trial court in setting aside the ex-parte decree was correct, against which the petitioner no.1 filed Writ Petition No.2312 of 1982 Paras Nath and others Vs. Board of Revenue which was admitted and operation of order of Board of Revenue dated 16.9.1982 has been stayed vide interim order dated 1.4.1983. A copy of the order passed by Board of Revenue dated 16.9.1982 as well as interim order dated 1.4.1983 passed by this Court are on record as Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition. 5. It is further stated that the father of petitioner no.2 had also filed a suit u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act against the state of U.P. Gaon Sabha in respect of plot no.53/8 area 1.46 acre of Khata No.131 situated in village-Khardeha Pargana-Katehar, Tehsil and District -Varanasi. The aforesaid Suit no.199 of 1964 was decreed ex parte on 30.4.1964 and father of the petitioner no.2 was declared sirdar over the said plot. The copy of the aforesaid order is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The aforesaid Suit no.199 of 1964 was decreed ex parte on 30.4.1964 and father of the petitioner no.2 was declared sirdar over the said plot. The copy of the aforesaid order is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against which the Gaon Sabha had filed restoration application after lapse of 10 years on 16.1.1974 which was subsequently abated due to the reason that the village in question was under consolidation operation, against which appeal was dismissed and thereafter the matter went up to the Board of Revenue and the case was remanded to the trial court. It is stated that one Bhola moved an application to proceed with the case after remand. The said application was dismissed on 30.7.2003, against which revision was filed, which was rejected on 11.2.2005, against which another revision was filed and case was ordered to be fixed for hearing by order dated 25.9.2008. Against the order of setting aside aforesaid ex-parte decree in favour of father of petitioner no.2, he had filed revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi which is still pending. A copy of the memo of revision are on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. It is stated that Ram Roop father of the petitioner no. 2 has died and being his son petitioner no.2 has already been substituted as his heir in the court below. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh for caveator and learned standing counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 3. 7. In given facts and circumstances of the case learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly in respect of land in dispute the suit of petitioner no.1u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act was decreed ex-parte by the trial. It is no doubt true that the Board of Revenue allowed the Gaon Sabha's restoration application but against which the petitioner no.1 had already filed writ petition before this Court which was admitted and operation of order of Board of Revenue was stayed by this Court. Meaning thereby, the ex parte decree u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act in favour of petitioner no. 1 is still in operation, as such the same could have been given effect to and could not have been ignored by consolidation authorities while deciding the case in consolidation proceeding. Similarly in case of Ram Roop father of petitioner no. Meaning thereby, the ex parte decree u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act in favour of petitioner no. 1 is still in operation, as such the same could have been given effect to and could not have been ignored by consolidation authorities while deciding the case in consolidation proceeding. Similarly in case of Ram Roop father of petitioner no. 2 in respect of land in dispute the suit under section 229 B of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act was decreed ex-parte on 30.10.1964 and matter of restoration is still subjudice and it is contended that unless and until the ex paprte decree in favour of Ram Roop father of the petitioner no.2 is set aside, the same stands good and consolidation authorities could not have discarded the same. Accordingly, the orders passed by consolidation authorities are wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Smt. Dhanpati Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 2003 (5) AWC 4296. 8. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the record. From perusal of order dated 25.3.1965 passed in Suit No.472 of 1964 Paras Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition it appears that the aforesaid suit was decreed ex parte and petitioner no.1 was declared sirdar over the plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre. It transpires from the record that the restoration application moved by Gaon Sabha and State Government was allowed by the trial court and ex-parte decree dated 25.3.1965 passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside. Thereafter the petitioner no.1 had preferred revision, there upon the reference was made to the Board of Revenue along with connected cases wherein Board of Revenue had found that the order passed by trial court setting aside the ex-parte decree in favour of petitioner was correct. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.9.1982 passed by Board of Revenue the petitioner no.1 along with other persons filed Writ Petition No.2312 of 1982 before this Court, wherein vide interim order dated 1.4.1983 the operation of order passed by Board of Revenue was stayed by this Court. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.9.1982 passed by Board of Revenue the petitioner no.1 along with other persons filed Writ Petition No.2312 of 1982 before this Court, wherein vide interim order dated 1.4.1983 the operation of order passed by Board of Revenue was stayed by this Court. But there is nothing to indicate in the said interim stay order that this court has also intended to stay the pending dispute in consolidation proceeding in respect of land in dispute. Similarly the suit under Section 229-B filed by the father of the petitioner no.2 in respect of plot in dispute was decreed ex parte vide order dated 30.10.1964. It transpires from the record that aforesaid ex parte decree was set aside by the trial court on restoration application of State Government and Gaon Sabha, against which revision filed by the petitioner no. 2 on 15.3.2010 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) seems to be pending before the Commissioner and it is claimed that the order of trial court setting aside ex parte decree was stayed by the revisional court (Commissioner Varanasi). 9. In given facts and circumstances of the case, the questions arise for consideration of this court are that what would be effect of the aforesaid interim stay orders passed by this court in writ petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 and in revision filed by the petitioner no. 2 and as to whether on account of said interim stay orders, the effect of orders under challenged therein would be completely wiped out or would remain in existence in the eye of law and as to whether due to said interim stay orders the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 would be revived and would be given effect to by the consolidation courts? 10. In this connection it is to be noted that one of the such questions has come into consideration of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 S.C. 1439 , wherein in para 10 of the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "10. ..........While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. ..........While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority.. . . . . " 11. Thus from a close analysis of the aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that a distinction has to be drawn between the effect of quashing of an order and staying of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of quashing of order which has been quashed. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of quashing of order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of that order does not however lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the appellate authority is quashed and the matter is remanded the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the appellate authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the appellate authority after quashing the order of the appellate authority. The same can not be said with regard to an order staying the operation of order of appellate authority because in spite of said order, the order of appellate authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. 12. It is for the aforestated reasons also the doctrine of merger has no application in such situation. If the order passed by subordinate court is challenged before superior forum or court and operation of said order is stayed by superior court or forum, the order passed by subordinate court cannot be said to be merged in the interim stay order passed by superior court, instead thereof such order of inferior forum would remain in existence in the eye of law and merely its operation would remain suspended from the date of stay order and/or from the date of its communication. In my considered opinion, the order of inferior court stands merged only if the superior court finally decides the lis pending before it. In my considered opinion, the order of inferior court stands merged only if the superior court finally decides the lis pending before it. After such disposal, the order of inferior court is either reversed or modified or affirmed by superior court or forum, only then the order of inferior court stands merged in the order of superior court or forum, thereupon it is order of superior court or forum which alone would be operative but such situation cannot be contemplated in case of staying of operation of an order of inferior court by the superior court. 13. Now applying the aforesaid legal position stated by Hon'ble Apex Court, in given facts of the case, it is to be noted that since the ex-parte decree dated 25.3.1965 passed in suit no. 472 of 1964, Paras Nath Vs. U.P. State and Gaon Sabha under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act had already been set aside by trial court and in reference before the Board of Revenue the aforesaid order was affirmed, therefore, merely because of the reason that the said order of Board of Revenue was stayed in writ petition no. 2312 of 1982 filed by petitioner no.1, in my considered opinion, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court,the effect of the order passed by trial court setting aside ex-parte decree affirmed by the Board of Revenue cannot be held to be wiped out from existence, rather the aforesaid order setting aside the ex-parte decree shall continue to exist in law, and so long as the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue would remain in existence, it cannot be held that the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner no.1 has been revived and should have been given effect to by the consolidation courts. Similarly the ex-parte decree dated 30.10.1964 passed in suit no. 199 of 1964, Ram Roop Vs. Similarly the ex-parte decree dated 30.10.1964 passed in suit no. 199 of 1964, Ram Roop Vs. State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act was set aside by the trial court and merely on account of stay order granted by revisional court in revision filed by petitioner no.2 the effect of order setting aside the ex-parte decree cannot be held to be wiped out from existence, rather the said order would remain in existence in the eye of law in spite of said interim stay order, and such interim stay order cannot revive the ex-party decree passed in favour of father of petitioner no.2, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid ex-parte decrees passed in favour of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 ought to have been given effect by consolidation courts, appears to be wholly misplaced and has to be rejected. In my opinion, in given facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid ex parte decrees cannot be held to be revived, as such no fault can be found in ignoring the aforesaid decrees by consolidation courts while passing impugned orders. The decision rendered by this Court in Smt. Dhanpati's case (supra) is quite distinguishable on facts, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same. However, in any view of the matter, any observation made by this Court in aforesaid decision contrary to the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. case can be held to be made in per in curium. 14. Besides this, from the perusal of judgment and order dated 16.9.1982 passed by Board of Revenue in Reference No.643 to 646 of 1972-73 it appears that the ex parte decrees were obtained by the petitioner no.1 and father of the petitioner no.2 without service of notice upon the Collector who was necessary party in a suit u/s 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and the then Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha had colluded with the decree holders, as such the same were obtained without notice and hearing of the State Government and Gaon Sabha. Therefore in my opinion aforesaid ex-parte decrees are held to be nullity as such could not be acted upon by the consolidation courts on that count also. 15. Therefore in my opinion aforesaid ex-parte decrees are held to be nullity as such could not be acted upon by the consolidation courts on that count also. 15. There is yet another aspect of the matter which has also impelled me for refusing to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case in hand. It is to be noted that prior to the interim order dated 1.4.1983 passed by this court, the consolidation officer had already decided the objection filed by the Gaon Sabha on 30.4.1978, whereby basic year entry made in favour of petitioner no.1 in respect of plot no.117 area 8 decimal of village in question was directed to be expunged, whereas entry made in respect of plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre was maintained and entries made in favour of father of the petitioner no.2 in respect of Khata no.131 comprising plot no.53/8 area 1.46 acre was also directed to be expunged from the basic year khatauni and the land was directed to be entered in Banzar Khata in column no.5. The appeal preferred by the Gaon Sabha in respect of plot no.245/1 area 1.48 acre of Khata no.93 was allowed and name of petitioner no.1 was directed to be expunged from plot no. 245/1 area 1.48 acre. However, the appeals filed by the petitioners alongwith other persons were dismissed vide common judgement and order dated 13.1.1983 and lands were directed to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Consequently, the plot no. 245/1 area 1.48 acre was directed to be recorded as Pokhari (Talab or tank) in Khata of Gaon Sabha whereas plot claimed by father of petitioner no. 2 was directed to be recorded as banjar in Khata of Gaon Sabha. Thus, the aforesaid appeals were decided by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation prior to interim order dated 1.4.1983 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2312 of 1982 filed by the petitioner no.1 along with other persons. Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found in the orders of consolidation courts on account of said interim order of this Court. 16. Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found in the orders of consolidation courts on account of said interim order of this Court. 16. It is no doubt true that revisions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide common judgment and order dated 7.04.2010 after interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition but there is nothing to indicate that vide said interim order, the consolidation courts were restrained from deciding the dispute pending before them. Not only this but the petitioners have voluntarily participated in the proceedings before consolidation courts, without any demur, with the hope of their success and it appears that before the consolidation court they have merely insisted that the ex-parte decrees passed by revenue court in their favour should be given effect to and should not be ignored by the consolidation courts for the reasons that the orders passed by the trial court setting aside the ex-parte decrees have been stayed by this court in writ petition no. 2312 of 1982, Paras Nath and others Vs. Board of Revenue and in pending revision before the Commissioner filed by the petitioner no.2. In this view of the matter for the reasons stated herein before in my opinion, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on that score too. 17. Apart from it, since the plot no.245/1 was found as pokhari by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and other consolidation authorities and rest of the plots in dispute claimed by the petitioner no.2 and other persons are also recorded as Talab, Bheeta, Bandh and Banjar land belonging to the Gaon Sabha, therefore, while placing reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hinch Lal Vs. Kamla Devi and others reported in 2001 (1992) R.D. 689-693 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that on the land in dispute no sirdari right could be accrued in favour of petitioner no.1 and father of the petitioner no.2 and the view taken by subordinate consolidation authorities in respect of plots in dispute could not be faulted with. In my opinion rightly so. 18. Further the aforesaid ex parte decrees were obtained by aforesaid persons by playing fraud upon the parties and the courts as well. In my opinion rightly so. 18. Further the aforesaid ex parte decrees were obtained by aforesaid persons by playing fraud upon the parties and the courts as well. Therefore, such ex parte decrees are otherwise nullity and cannot be pressed into service for grabing the lands of Gaon Sabha which are in the nature of pokhari, tank, boundary of pond, dam of water channel which have been vested in State under Section 6 of UPZA & LR Act and re-vested in Gaon Sabha under the provisions of Section 117 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. If the impugned orders passed by the consolidation courts would be set aside on that technical grounds as pleaded in the writ petition, in my opinion the illegalities committed while passing the said ex parte decrees u/s 229B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act in favour of the petitioners no.1 father of petitioner no. 2 would be restored and perpetuated thus the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha would be illegally grabbed by the petitioners. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of A.P., AIR 1966 S.C. 828 , Mohd Swaleeh Vs. Addl. District Judge, Meerut A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 98 and M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2583 even if the orders passed by consolidation courts are technically erroneous even then I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the further opinion that since the controversy pertaining to title of the petitioners in respect of Plots in dispute has been set at rest by this Court, therefore, in given facts and circumstances of the case the pending Writ Petition No. 2312 of 1982 filed by the petitioner no. 1 and pending revision referred herein before filed by the petitioner no. 2 have been rendered infructuous. 20. In view of aforesaid discussion I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the same stands dismissed afresh without calling for any counter affidavit.