JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 16-3-1991 and 30-3-1991, the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 2-6-1998 and the order of Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 14-1-1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceedings passed order dated 16-3-1991, whereby it was directed that in Khata No. 76 of village Salempur Mahdood, name of deceased Ahmad Ali S/o Pir Bux be deleted and name of Salim S/o Makhmool be recorded and the name of Kalu S/o Aladia deceased be deleted and name of his heirs be recorded. The recall application was filed for recalling the order dated 16-3-199 1 passed by Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act relating to Khata No. 76 situated in village Salempur Mahmood. The recall application has been filed on 8.8.1994 by one Abdul Latif S/o Sri Gulam Hussain R/o Village Rajpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar before the Consolidation Officer, on behalf of Kalu S/o Ali Bux, being attorney holder, executed in his favour on 8-8-1994. It appears that in the recall application the date of order passed by consolidation Officer against which the recall application was filed was wrongly mentioned as order dated 30-3-199 1, whereas the order was passed by consolidation Officer is dated 16-3-1991. The application has been rejeced vide order dated 25-7-1995, on the ground that since Kalu S/o Ali Bux has not filed the recall application himself and the application is doubtful. 3. Aggrieved by the order of passed by Consolidation Officer, dated 25-7-1995, appeals were preferred before Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the appeals vide order dated 2-6-1998, on the ground that in Khata No. 76 name of Kalu S/o Aladia is recorded, no objection has been filed U/S-9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the recall application has not been filed by Kalu himself and it was filed after lapse of three years by the attorney. 4. Further aggrieved by the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, revisions were preferred and the Assistant Director Consolidation vide impugned order dated 14-1-1999, dismissed the revisions. 4. Further aggrieved by the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, revisions were preferred and the Assistant Director Consolidation vide impugned order dated 14-1-1999, dismissed the revisions. The revisional authority has rejected the revisions on the ground that the order dated 16-3-1991 has been passed on merit therefore the appeal ought to have been filed instead of filing the recall application. It was further observed that no objection has been filed U/s 9-A of the Act. 5. Hence the present writ petition has been filed. 6. During the pendency of writ petition petitioners Ahmed Ali and Kalu had died and they were substituted by their legal heirs by the order of this Court. 7. Civil Misc. Application No. 3076 of 2009 was also filed by the petitioners and along with the application they filed copy of order dated 25-7-95 whereby the recall application has been rejected; copy of order dated 2-6-1998 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation passed in appeals, copy of Khautani Khata No. 1/24, Khautani Khata No. 21/83 and copy of Khautani Khata No. 14/65 of 1359 Fasli as well as copy of Jot Chakbandi Akar Patra 2-A of plot No. 1892 of Village Salempur Mahmood. 8. The case of the petitioners is that in Khautani Khata No. 21/38, Plot No. 1892, area 12 Biswa; in Khautani Khata No. 1/24, plot No. 1892, area 1 Bigha 2 Biswa and in Khautani Khata No. 24/65, plot No. 1892, area 1892 Biswa, all situated in village Salempur Mahmood, names of Kalu S/o Ali Bux Dhobi and Ahmad Ali S/o Pir Bux Teli, residents of Rajpur were recorded. In C.H.-2-A, their names have not been shown in plot No. 1892, whereas the Consolidation Officer in its order dated 16-3-1991, has mentioned that in basic year Khata No. 76 of village Salempur Mahmood names of Kalu S/o Aladia and Ahmad Ali S/o Pir Bux residents of Bogala are recorded. In C.H.-2-A, their names have not been shown in plot No. 1892, whereas the Consolidation Officer in its order dated 16-3-1991, has mentioned that in basic year Khata No. 76 of village Salempur Mahmood names of Kalu S/o Aladia and Ahmad Ali S/o Pir Bux residents of Bogala are recorded. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the view taken by courts below that the petitioners have not filed objection U/S 9-A of the Act, is erroneous on the face of the fact that since the petitioners were already recorded tenure holders and hence there was no occasion for filing the objection especially when the exparte order was passed during consolidation and when the exparte order came to notice the recall application has been filed, but the courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter and have acted illegally by passing the impugned orders. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and it is stated that Abdul Latif was not competent to file recall application as well as the appeals and the revision since the land does not belong to the predecessor of petitioners rather it belongs to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the names of predecessors of petitioners were not recorded in the Khata and the names of the respondents Sri Kalu S/o Aladia and Ahmad Ali S/o Pir Bux were recorded, therefore, C.H. Form 5 were issued to them. The petitioners are residents of village Rajpur, therefore, when this fact came to the notice that the land is not recorded in their name the recall application for recalling the order dated 16-3-1991, passed by Consolidation Officer, was moved. The impugned order has been passed without any rhyme or reason that the recall application has not been filed by a competent person, whereas the recall application has been filed Abdul Latif S/o Gulam Hussain on behalf of executor of power of attorney and power of attorney was executed by Kalu S/o Ali Bux on 8-8-1994 which was attested by Sri Shiv Charan Nath Sharma, Notary Advocate. 12. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has contended that the Abdul Latif was not party to the consolidation proceedings and he had filed appeals against the order dated 25-7-1995, whereby the recall application has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer, therefore, the appeals were not maintainable. 13. The above argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that since in the recall application this fact has been mentioned that the recall application has been filed by Abdul Latif on behalf of Kalu who had executed power of attorney in his favour and he was authorized to do pairwee of cases on his behalf. 14. In consolidation proceeding the provision of U.P. L.R. Act 1901 is applicable as mentioned in Section 41 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 15. Section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides for rehearing of the orders passed ex parte or by default, on proof of good cause for non-appearance. Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is reproduced as below: “201- No appeal from orders passed ex parte or by default-No appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 exparte or by default. Re-hearing on proof of good cause for non-appearance- But in all such cases, if the party against whom judgment has been given appears either in person or by agent (if a plaintif, within fifteen days from the date of such order, and if a defendant, within fifteen days after such order has been communicated to him, or after any process for enforcing the judgment has been executed or at any earlier period), and shows good cause of his non-appeaance and satisfies the oficer making the order that there has been a failure of justice, such oficer may, upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as he thinks proper, revive the case and alter or rescind the order accodting to justice of the case. Order not to be altered without summons to adverse party-Provided that no such order shall be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour judgment has been iven to appear and be heard in support of it.” 16. Order not to be altered without summons to adverse party-Provided that no such order shall be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour judgment has been iven to appear and be heard in support of it.” 16. The consolidation proceedings are settlement proceedings wherein the right and title of parties is finally decided and after close of consolidation, in view of section 49 of Consolidation of holdings Act, no person under consolidation can file any suit for declaration of his right in civil court and revenue court respectively. In the recall application it was mentioned that when the order came to the knowledge from the Khautani received from Lekhpal on 30-7-1994, thereafter copy of order was obtained on 4-8-1994 and then the recall application has been filed. Futher it was mentioned in the recall application filed by Abdul Latif that he has been appointed power of attorney by Kalu S/o Alix Bux and he he is competent to do pairwee on the basis of power of attorney. 17. The order dated 16-3-1991 passed by Consolidation Officer, is ex parte without issuing notices to the predecessor of the petitioners, i.e. Kalu s/o Ali Bux and Ahmad Ali s/o Pir Bux, and no objection could be filed on their behalf, and their names were recorded on the disputed land, in the revenue record of 1359 Fasli, therefore, in view of Section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, they have right of rehearing. 18. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners are given liberty to file their objection U/S 9-A(ii) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Consolidation Officer concerned within a period of six weeks and the Consolidation Officer is directed to issue fresh notices to the recorded tenure holders as on today and after giving opportunity of adducing evidence by parties, and decide the case on merit in accordance with law, expeditiously, as far as possible.