JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Notice on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 9 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice for respondent no. 8. Mr. R.K. Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 and files vakalatnama, the same is taken on record. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to respondents no. 6 and 7, hence notices to them are hereby dispensed with. 3. Since a very short legal question is involved in the instant writ petition, as such, it has been heard and is being decided at the admission stage with the consent of parties' counsel present before the Court. 4. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha, Mr. R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5 as well as learned standing counsel for the State and perused the records. 5. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.7.2015 passed in Revision No. 89/206 filed under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as well as the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur in Appeal No. 126. 6. As per the given facts in writ petition, a delayed objection was filed under Section 20 (1) U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act by respondent no. 5 before the Consolidation Officer whereby he demanded a single chak. Ram Das, Jivanlal, Baburam, Mohan, Ram Narayan and Smt. Makin had also filed objections and demanded that their chaks may not be disturbed and the chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer may be maintained. A compromise was entered into between the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 on 05.12.2013. In the proceedings under Section 21 (1) the said objections were decided vide order dated 05.12.2013 which though did not mention about the alleged compromise entered into between respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5, however, in the CH Form 23 the chaks were demarcated on the basis of said compromise. It was thereafter that respondent no. 4, Mahavir filed appeal under Section 21 (2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in which Gaya Prasad, Ram Janki Mandir and Bal Govind were impleaded as respondents. 7. It is to be noted that respondent no. 5, however, in the CH Form 23 the chaks were demarcated on the basis of said compromise. It was thereafter that respondent no. 4, Mahavir filed appeal under Section 21 (2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in which Gaya Prasad, Ram Janki Mandir and Bal Govind were impleaded as respondents. 7. It is to be noted that respondent no. 5 Yadukul Shiksha Samit, through its Manager Lal Singh was not impleaded a party in the said appeal, although the order under challenge was passed in the objections preferred by respondent no. 5. The said appeal was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2014. Mahavir thereafter preferred a revision under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was registered as Revision No. 89/2006 in which 11 persons were impleaded as respondents i.e., Babu Ram, Smt. Savitri, Chhotelal, Babu Ram, Ram Das, Jivanlal, Bal Govind, Ram Bharosey, Dularey, Gaon Sabha Katka, State of U.P. Here-again, respondent no. 5, Yadukul Shiksha Samit through its Manager Lal Singh was not impleaded a party. The said revision was decided vide impugned order dated 20.7.2015. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has been passed without impleading the necessary parties. 9. Mr. R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 4 and 5 submits that it is wrong to say that the order dated 05.12.2013 was passed on the basis of compromise and CH Form 23 was prepared by considering the alleged compromise. He has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the writ petition has been filed by misjoinder of parties and the same is not maintainable. 10. Rival submissions have been made about the merit of the claim of parties over the land in question. However, before considering the merit of claim of the parties, it is necessary to first examine as to whether the proceedings in the appeal preferred by respondent no. 4, Mahavir as well as in the proceedings in revision preferred against the appellate order by Mahavir, all the necessary parties were impleaded or not. 11. Considering the record annexed with the writ petition as well as the submissions made by the parties' counsel, it appears that there is no dispute with respect to the parties impleaded in the proceedings in the aforesaid appeal as well as revision. 12. 11. Considering the record annexed with the writ petition as well as the submissions made by the parties' counsel, it appears that there is no dispute with respect to the parties impleaded in the proceedings in the aforesaid appeal as well as revision. 12. It is to be noted that the proceedings of appeal as well as revision have the origin from the objections filed by respondent no. 5, Yadukul Shiksha Samiti through it Manager Lal Singh, which is a necessary party in the proceedings before the appellate Court as well as before the Revisional Court. 13. Admittedly, Yadukul Shiksha Samiti through its Manager Lal Singh was not impleaded as party in the proceedings before the appellate Court as well as before the Revisional Court. 14. It would be another issue as to whether Yadukul Shiksha Samit was adversely affected or not by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 05.12.2013, however, in the proceedings in appeal as well as revision against the order dated 05.12.2013, it will be a necessary party. As such, I am of the considered view that the orders impugned i.e., order dated 20.7.2015 passed in Revision No. 89/206 as well as the order dated 07.05.2014 passed in Appeal No. 126 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. The orders dated 20.7.2015 and 07.05.2014 are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur to decide about the maintainability of the appeal preferred by respondent no. 4, Mahavir and thereafter proceed further to decide it on merit. The proceedings before the respondent no. 2 shall be decided in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. With these observations/directions, the writ petition is allowed.