Judgment B.S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.4.1999, 26.09.2001, 20.12.2003 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively annexed as Annexure No.7, 9, 14 to this writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is purchaser who purchased half share of Smt. Bhuri. Objections under Section 9(A)-2 of Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Smt. Bhuri and Shaukat (respondent no.4 herein), which were decided on merit by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 01.02.1996. According to the petitioner, this order was not assailed by any of the parties before any court of law. But by subsequent order dated 10.07.1996, objections were again decided by the Consolidation Officer. In the order dated 10.07.1996, it was mentioned by the C.O. that on 10.4.1996 the predecessor C.O. set aside the order dated 1.2.1996 and has directed to decide the objections on merit. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short, S.O.C.), after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the record, observed that it emerges out that no such application of recall of order is traceable on the file and there is no mention of that application in the order sheet also and no such order dated 10.4.1996 to recall the order dated 1.2.1996 is available on the record and ultimately by judgment and order dated 9.11.1998 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 10.7.1996 and remanded the matter for being decided afresh on merit. The petitioner being aggrieved by the remand order dated 9.11.1998, preferred revision before Assistant Director of Consolidation Haridwar. Vide order dated 15.4.1999, revision was dismissed and a direction was given to the parties to appear before the C.O. to clarify the facts. After this order, both the parties appeared before the C.O. and the matter was heard by the C.O. By order dated 26.09.2001, the C.O. set aside the order dated 1.2.1996 and 10.7.1996 and directed to appear before him to produce additional evidence, if any. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2001, the petitioner filed appeal before the S.O.C., which was also dismissed on 19.6.2003. Thereafter, revision was preferred which was also dismissed on 20.12.2003. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2001, the petitioner filed appeal before the S.O.C., which was also dismissed on 19.6.2003. Thereafter, revision was preferred which was also dismissed on 20.12.2003. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. By perusal of the order dated 1.2.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer, it transpires that order was passed on merit, after hearing the parties. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that this order was an ex-parte order cannot be accepted and hence restoration application was not maintainable. 5. This fact is not disputed that the restoration application was not traceable on file; however typed copy of the same was filed by respondent no.4 Shaukat when the matter was remanded. After remand, the C.O. while deciding the objections again, set aside the earlier order which was passed on merit and observed that restoration application was available on file and was signed by the officer. 6. In Smt. Shivraji & others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & others, reported in 1997(88), Revenue Decisions, Page 562, Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has held as under:- “36. Coming to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority, he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal.” 7. In light of the above-context, it is now well settled that the consolidation authorities have no power to review its own order and therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order, except the clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order. 8. In light of the above-context, it is now well settled that the consolidation authorities have no power to review its own order and therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order, except the clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order. 8. In the instant case also, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 10.07.1996, recalled its earlier order dated 1.2.1996, which was passed on merits and as such, the said order is totally bad and perverse in the eyes of law and is accordingly, set aside. All the subsequent orders passed thereafter are also set aside. Order dated 1.2.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer is maintained. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file appeal, along with delay condonation application, before the S.O.C. against the order dated 1.2.1996.