JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.12.2012 and 31.3.2015, by which the restoration application was allowed and the revision was restored to its original number and the recall application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. The revision was dismissed in default on 27.1.1991 and the recall application was filed on 28.1.1991. Thereafter the recall application was dismissed in default on 6.8.1999 and the application for recalling the order dated 6.8.1999 was filed on 18.8.1999. The second recall application was also dismissed in default on 4.2.2007 and the recall application was filed on 29.10.2007. Thereafter it was again dismissed in default on 29.8.2009 and the recall application was filed on 9.12.2009. Thus, apart from, last recall application, all the recall applications were filed within time. It is alleged that the case was listed on 28.12.2012 and on that day the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed all the recall applications and restored the revision to its original number. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for recall of the order dated 28.12.2012 on 22.1.2013. In the recall application the petitioners have alleged that on 28.12.2012 due to condolence there was a resolution of the Bar Association that the advocates would abstain from the work on that day but in spite of the resolution and a general date fixed in the cases as 25.1.2013, it appears that subsequently, the order dated 28.12.2012 recalling all the orders and restoring the revision to its original number was passed. The order was passed ex parte and behind the back of the petitioners and was liable to be recalled. The recall application was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation found that on perusal of the order dated 28.12.2012 showed that it was passed after hearing the arguments of the parties. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to recall the order. The recall application was not maintainable as such the recall application was rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to recall the order. The recall application was not maintainable as such the recall application was rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that from the questionnaire issued from the office of the Deputy Director of Consolidation itself proves that on 28.12.2012 due to condolence, by a resolution of the Bar Association, advocates abstained from the work on that day and in such circumstances general date was fixed as 25.1.2013 but this case was decided behind the back of the petitioners. The Presiding Officer was retiring on 28.12.2012 and he had passed the order after general date was fixed in the revision. 5. So far as the questionnaire issued from the office of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned, it shows that files in which arguments were heard, were not adjourned for 25.1.2013. Only remaining files, which could not be heard at the time of receiving of the resolution, were adjourned. Thus, on this basis no finding can be recorded that resolution of the Bar Association in respect of abstaining from work was received in the morning at 10-00 A.M. In the impugned order, it has been noticed that arguments of the parties were heard. In such circumstances, the order cannot be said to be passed behind the back of the petitioners. 6. So far as the recalling of the various orders is concerned, it is admitted that all the orders were passed in default and the restoration applications were filed within time except the last restoration application, which was filed on 9.12.2009. Thus, the cause was found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the orders were recalled. This Court is not required to re-examine the sufficiency of the cause for recalling the orders. 7. The counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the appeal was transferred from the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Mirzapur to the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Allahabad and in view of the judgment of this Court in Darbari Lal vs. D.D.C. Jalaun and others, 1989 RD 304 and Ram Das Rai vs. D.D.C., (1994) 1 CRC 189, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision and decide it. However, there are contradictory decisions of this Court on this point too. However, there are contradictory decisions of this Court on this point too. In Parshuram vs. D.D.C. and others, 2006(100) RD 746, this Court has held that in view of Rule 111 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, the revision is liable to be presented before the Deputy Director of Consolidation of the district of the unit. The meaning of the word 'unit' is where the land situates. Therefore, in view of the contradictory judgments of this Court, it cannot be said that the revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur was not maintainable. In any case the petitioners may file an application for transfer of revision in case the court at Mirzapur will have no jurisdiction then it may be transferred for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction but due to it, the order passed in the recall applications cannot be held to be illegal. 8. view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.