Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.05.2001 passed by the opposite party no. 1i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.). contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and also to quash the order dated 16.09.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer/opposite party no. 2 contained in Annexure No 2 to this writ petition. By means of this order, writ petition no. 384 (Consolidation) of 2000 Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki shall also stands disposed of.2. Another Writ petition No. 384(Cons.) of 2000, filed by the same petitioner, praying to quash the order dated 29.05.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1265 under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act Hari Prasad vs. Rakesh Kumar, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record of both cases.4. During the proceedings of Consolidation Gata No. 76 and 74 belonging to the petitioners and respondent no. 3 in writ petition no. 457(Cons.)of 2001 & respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 384(Cons.) 2000 respectively, will now referred respondent, new numbers were allotted to these Gatas as 175 & 173 respectively. Respondent Harihar in proceedings filed objection under Section 9A of the Act. It is said that no reply was filed by the petitioner and he also failed to appear before the Consolidation Officer, although he was served with the notice so exparte proceedings started against him vide order dated 10.06.1998 and after going through the record on the report of Draftsman, Consolidation Officer passed order dated 16.09.1998 and allowed the objections. Saying that this order of the Consolidation officer was passed in exparte proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner in the same court on 11.01.1999. It is said that notices were issued to the respondent for hearing of this application. He was served and appeared through counsel in the matter. NO objections were filed by him so this application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.02.2000. Cost was awarded and the same was received by the counsel for the respondent. It is said that notices were issued to the respondent for hearing of this application. He was served and appeared through counsel in the matter. NO objections were filed by him so this application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.02.2000. Cost was awarded and the same was received by the counsel for the respondent. Aggrieved by this order, respondent challenged the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision directly petitioner raised objection before the Deputy Director of Consolidation about maintainability of the Revision but his these objections were dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 29.05.2000. Against this order passed by the revisional court, writ petition No. 386(Consolidation) 2000 was filed by the petitioners before this court. In this writ petition, this Court vide order dated 19.10.2000 directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the relevant record of the case in question pending before the Consolidation Officer as well as pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.05.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This writ petition remained pending but D.D.C. started hearing in the matter. It is said that Transfer Application was also moved by the petitioners for transferring the case from the court concerned, this application was also pending but by the impugned order dated 30.05.2001, the Revision was finally disposed of by the D.D.C.. Aggrieved by this order, this writ petition has been filed.5. Record of the Writ Petition No. 384(Consolidation) 2000 is connected with this writ petition and file is available.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that against the order dated 17.02.2000 in place of filing an appeal before the S.O.C.(Settlement Officer Consolidation), under Section 11 of the Act, directly the Revision has been filed before the D.D.C. Why forum prescribed in Consolidation of Holdings Act was not adopted and why the D.D.C. has directly entertained the Revision against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.02.2000, it is not clear from the record. Further preliminary objections on behalf of Rakesh Kumar, petitioner were raised that order dated 16.09.1998 was passed by the Consolidation Officer in exparte proceedings so on the application of the petitioner the same was set aside and Rs. 30/- Costs were awarded which was received by the counsel for the respondent, this shows that he had accepted the order dated 17.02.2000 so now this Revision is not maintainable. 30/- Costs were awarded which was received by the counsel for the respondent, this shows that he had accepted the order dated 17.02.2000 so now this Revision is not maintainable. Both these preliminary objections of the petitioners were decided by the Revisional Court but Undisputedly, Writ Petition against this order of the Revisional Court is pending in this court. Learned counsel stated that this fact was brought into the notice of learned D.D.C. when he had decided the Revision finally by the impugned order. A Transfer Application was also moved for transferring the case from his court and this fact was also brought to the notice of the D.D.C. of the court but ignoring, both these facts, it appears that he was adamant to decide the Revision so he had finally disposed of the Revision without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.7. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that this fact was in the knowledge of the D.D.C. that transfer applications were moved by the petitioners against him. Pendency of the Writ Petition No. 384(Consolidation) 2000 before this court, was also not in knowledge of the D.D.C. when the impugned order was passed, nowhere claimed at the time of argument on behalf of the respondent. What was urgency in the matter and why having knowledge of both these important facts, learned D.D.C. has decided Revision finally, it is not properly explained on behalf of the respondent. Filing of Revision directly against the order of C.O. dated 17.02.2000 is against the forum prescribed under the Act and this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners also cannot be said without force that Revision directly was not maintainable before the D.D.C. against the order of C.O. dated 17.02.2000.8. However, from the record it reveals that treating the order dated 16.09.1998 on the application of the petitioners, the same was set aside by the Consolidation Officer saying that it was an exparte order. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that this order was not passed in ex parte proceedings. Sufficient information was given to the petitioner but he did not turn up on the date fixed in the matter. Earlier of this order, as he was absent on 10.06.1998 on the date fixed in the matter, order for proceeding exparte was passed. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that this order was not passed in ex parte proceedings. Sufficient information was given to the petitioner but he did not turn up on the date fixed in the matter. Earlier of this order, as he was absent on 10.06.1998 on the date fixed in the matter, order for proceeding exparte was passed. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that without giving sufficient reasons in a cursory manner vide order dated 17.02.2000, 16.09.1998 was set aside. It was further argued that he has not engaged the counsel whose appearance was shown in case of Recall of the order and supported the same to recall it. He has also not authorized that counsel to receive the cost in the matter. All these facts were not considered by the learned C.O. when the order dated 17.02.2000 was passed.9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the arguments of both the parties counsel and after going through the records and also taking into consideration the writ petition No. 384 (Cons.) 2000, also writ petitions are allowed and finally disposed of with the direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh the application of the petitioners dated 11.01.1999 for setting aside the order dated 16.09.1998 after giving opportunity of filing objections against the same to the respondent and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Orders passed in between either by the Consolidation Officer or by the Revisional Court are hereby set aside. Learned Consolidation Officer is further directed to decide the Restoration Application dated 11.01.1999 within one month from the date when certified copy of this order is placed before him by either of the parties. None from both the parties shall be allowed to get unnecessarily adjourned the case before the Consolidation Officer. If the Consolidation Officer finds that any party is not interested in proceeding with the case before him after passing the order with reasons, he may proceed to decide the case taking the absence of that party but in no case, the limit of one month’s shall be extended. It is made clear that finding of the court of D.D.C. will not affect the power of the trial court in any way to decide the matter according to facts and circumstances and evidence on record.10. It is made clear that finding of the court of D.D.C. will not affect the power of the trial court in any way to decide the matter according to facts and circumstances and evidence on record.10. Copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected writ petition No. 384(Consolidation) of 2000._____________