Vikram Nath, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sankatha Rai. Advocate representing the sole contesting respondent No. 4. 2. In view of the fact that all the par­ties are represented this petition is being finally heard with the Consent of the learned Counsels for the parties. 3. According to the case of the peti­tioners they filed objections before the Con­solidation Officer in 1999. Said objections are said to have been misplaced where­upon petitioners filed application before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on which an order was passed for reconstruc­tion of the records and thereafter the objec­tions be decided after affording opportu­nity of evidence and hearing to the parties. This order was passed on 30.12.2004. Pur­suant to the same the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 10.3.2005 recording that although registered notices had been issued to the opposite parties but no one had appeared. It further recorded that from pe­rusal of the material evidence on record, the claim of the petitioners appeared to be justified\ Accordingly he condoned the delay in tiling the objections and fixed 21.3.2005 for evidence. Against the said order the respondent No, 4 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolida­tion being Revision No. 3/3/60 of 2007. In the meantime the Consolidation Officer passed an ex parte order dated 21.9.2006 allowing the objections of the petitioners holding that respondent No. 4 had 1/4 share and petitioners had 3/4 share in the Khata in dispute. Against the said order a writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 being Writ Petition No. 65321 of 2006 and also a recall application was filed be­fore the Consolidation Officer, for recalling the order dated 21.9.2006. The said appli­cation was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.12.2006. In view of the fact that the order dated 21.9.2006 had been recalled the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 18.4.2007. Subsequently it appears that upon an application being filed by the pe­titioners dated 11.1.2007, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 17.5.2007 recalled the order dated 14.12.2006 and maintained the order dated 21.9.2006 by one word 'restored'. Against the said order dated 17.5.2007 the respondent No. 4 filed another revision being Revision No. 4/4 of 2008-09. By the impugned order dated 14.7.2010 the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation has allowed both the revisions and quashed the orders dated 10.3.2005 and 17.5.2007. Against the said order dated 17.5.2007 the respondent No. 4 filed another revision being Revision No. 4/4 of 2008-09. By the impugned order dated 14.7.2010 the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation has allowed both the revisions and quashed the orders dated 10.3.2005 and 17.5.2007. The reason on which the revi­sions have been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the objec­tions were filed by the petitioners much after the publication of the notification un­der section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the C.H. Act). He has also observed that the order dated 30.12.2004 was based upon fraud. He further recorded that between the parties the issues had already been set­tled, in another proceeding under section 9-A(2) of the C.H. Act and therefore, the pre­sent objections were barred by the princi­ples of res judicata. 4. Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in his order dated 14.7.2010, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had neither recorded the date on which the notification under sec­tion 52 of the C.H. Act had been published nor had recorded any finding with respect to the claim of the petitioners that they had earlier filed objections in 1999.. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Con­solidation had also not recorded any find­ing as to how the order dated 30.12.2004 had been obtained by fraud. 5. Another argument raised on be­half of the petitioners is that the revisions were not maintainable as the orders im­pugned in the same were interlocutory in nature. 6. On the other hand, Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel representing the re­spondent No. 4 has submitted that the is­sues having already been settled in the ear­lier round of proceedings, the present pro­ceedings initiated by the petitioners and that too after notification under section 52 of the C.H. Act are not only barred by sec­tion 52 of the C.H. Act but also barred by the principles of res judicata. 7. Having considered the submis­sions and having perused the order dated 14.7.2010 of the Deputy Director of Con­solidation. 7. Having considered the submis­sions and having perused the order dated 14.7.2010 of the Deputy Director of Con­solidation. I find that no finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Con­solidation holding that the petitioners had never filed any objections in 1999 and that the order dated 30.12.2004 had been ob­tained by committing fraud and lastly when the parties had not been given any opportunity to lead evidence the finding of res judicata also stands vitiated. Best course open would have been to remand the mat­ter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh on merit and also after considering the preliminary objections which may be raised by the respondent No. 4 in response to the objections of the peti­tioners. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be maintained in the absence of the findings which were essen­tial. 9. In view of the above the writ peti­tion deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the order dated 14.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to him to decide it afresh in the light of the obser­vations made above in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 10. It is further provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall make an endeavour to decide the revisions within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. It goes without saying that both the parties shall co-operate in the hearing of the revisions. Petition Allowed.