JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Vakalatnamas filed by Sri M.N. Singh and Sri V.K. Tiwari, learend counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3 are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri M.N. Singh, along with Sri V.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short, 'the DDC') in revision no. 1171/2013-14 (Ramdev and Others Vs. Lallan and Others), by which the revision has been allowed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 18.2.2014 in case no. 125 (Lallan and Others Vs. Paltoo and Others) has been set aside. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, the petitioners herein have filed an application under section 5(c) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation seeking permission to construct a house over an area measuring about 0.080 hectare over 1/3rd share of the petitioners in plot no. 7/4. In the aforesaid case, certain statements were recorded. Few of them were made in favour of the petitioner stating that they have no objection in raising of the construction, but respondent no. 3 had raised serious objections, but the DDC has allowed the application by permitting the petitioners to raise construction. 5. Challenging this order, revision was filed by the contesting respondent, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 28.3.2014. 6. While assailing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no material before the DDC to arrive at the finding that the signatures on the statements were forged as the DDC had not summoned the records, whereas Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that the order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is a cryptic order as it does not contain any reason. In his submissions, although the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has recorded that the respondent no. 3 has filed an objection, but without discussing and nature and details of the objection, he has held that the objection is baseless. In his submissions, although the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has recorded that the respondent no. 3 has filed an objection, but without discussing and nature and details of the objection, he has held that the objection is baseless. In his submissions, without considering the objection raised by respondent no. 3, this finding could not be arrived at and an order without reason is like a dead corpus. 7. Sri Singh has also submitted that the partition of the land in dispute has not yet been taken place and it is the joint property of the petitioners and the respondent no. 3, therefore, unless the land is partitioned, no permission for raising construction could be granted. This fact has been denied by Sri Tripathi. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, I am satisfied that the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation without considering the objection of respondent no. 3, has illegally held that the objection is baseless. The position would have been different, had he discussed the details of the objection and thereafter, recorded the finding, but that is not the case here, therefore, this kind of order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation suffers from non-consideration of the material available on record. Likewise, the DDC has also allowed the revision without discussing the case of the parties on the hypothetical ground without there being any material before him to arrive at the finding that the signatures on the statements were forged, on which basis the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed the order impugned in the revision. 10. In view of the above, I am of the view that the orders passed by both the courts below are unsustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, both the orders, i.e., order dated 18.2.2014 in case no. 125 (Lallan and Others Vs. Paltoo and Others) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 1171/2013-14 (Ramdev and Others Vs. Lallan and Others), are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 125 (Lallan and Others Vs. Paltoo and Others) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 1171/2013-14 (Ramdev and Others Vs. Lallan and Others), are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation is directe to pass afresh order on the application of the petitioner after hearing all concerned in accordance with law expeditiously, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.