Vikram Nath, J.: - Amendment Application No. Nil of 2010 dated 15.9.2010 is allowed. 2. Necessary incorporation be car­ried out within a week, during course of the day. 3. Office may get the Amendment Application numbered from the Computer Section. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and S/Sri Atul Kumar Sharma and Manish Kumar Nigam, Advocates on behalf of the respondents. 5. The Deputy Director of Consoli­dation has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was not maintainable as it was filed against an in­terlocutory order passed by the Consolida­tion Officer. 6. Certain objections under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the respondents were initially allowed and were incorporated on an application under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appeal filed by the peti­tioner against the ex-parte order and the order under Rule 109 of the Rules, was al­lowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. The revision filed by the respondents against the remand order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was dismissed. The end result was that the objection under section 9-A(2) of the Act are pending before the Consolidation Officer to be decided afresh on merits after hearing the parties as per the order of the Settlement Officer. In the meantime the petitioner filed an application that the en­tries incorporated in the records, on the basis of the ex-parte order, which has been set aside may be scored out and the basic year entries be restored as the order passed allowing the objections under section 9-A(2) of the Act has already been quashed. The Consolidation Officer held that the application of the petitioner under Rule 109 of the Rules shall be considered alongwith the objections under section 9-A(2) of the Act. The revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. In the opinion of the Court, the orders being interlocutory in nature, the petition would also be liable to be dis­missed. 7. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the meantime the respondents taking advantage of the incorporation of their names on the basis of the ex parte or­der which has already been set aside, may either alienate the land in dispute or cut away the trees and remove the other mov­ables from the land in dispute. 8. 7. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the meantime the respondents taking advantage of the incorporation of their names on the basis of the ex parte or­der which has already been set aside, may either alienate the land in dispute or cut away the trees and remove the other mov­ables from the land in dispute. 8. Learned Counsels for the respon­dents has stated that the apprehension is misconceived. However they have submit­ted that the directions may be issued to the Consolidation Officer to decide the objec­tion expeditiously within a fixed time frame. 9. In view of the above discussion, without interfering with the orders passed by the Court below, impugned in this peti­tion, this petition is disposed of with a di­rection to the Consolidation Officer, Final Records, District Maharajganj, to decide the pending objections expeditiously, prefera­bly within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. 10. Till the disposal of the objections parties shall not alienate or change the na­ture of the land in dispute. Petition Disposed Of.