JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Raj Kumar for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Pandey for respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.08.2015 by which the application of the petitioners for summoning the original record of Case no. 4556/2220 decided on 30.03.1996 was rejected and a date has been fixed for argument in the restoration application. 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of share of the property of Raja Ram. The petitioners are claiming to be collateral of Raja Ram and natural heirs under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. While on the other hand the respondents no. 4 and 5 are claiming to be the daughter's sons of Raja Ram and heirs under the registered Will dated 27.08.1953 executed by Raja Ram. 4. Admittedly, at the time of death of Raja Ram his widow namely Lachhani Devi was alive and Lachhani Devi filed an objection under Section 9 A (2) of the Act for recording her name and names of her daughters and son-in-law on the basis of the Will dated 27.08.1953. It is alleged that the objection of Lachhani Devi was dismissed in default by order of Consolidation Officer dated 21.01.1975. Thereafter, a recall application has been filed and since the objection of Lachhani Devi was dismissed in default as such the share of Raja Ram in the property in dispute was divided amongst the remaining co-tenure holders according to the provisions of Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Thereafter, Lachhani Devi filed an application for recall of the order dated 21.01.1975 on 29.12.1995 along with delay condonation application which was allowed by order dated 09.01.1996 and thereafter the Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.09.1996 decided the share of heirs of Raja Ram. Thereafter, an application under Rule 109A of U.P.C.H. Rules 1954 was filed on 11.03.2014 which was also allowed by the order dated 30.03.2015. The petitioners thereafter filed an application dated 05.05.2015 for recall of the orders dated 30.03.1996 and 30.03.2015. The matter is still pending before the Consolidation Officer. In the meantime, the petitioners moved an application for summoning the original record of case no. 4556 decided on 30.03.1996 which was rejected by Consolidation Officer by the impugned order. 5. The petitioners thereafter filed an application dated 05.05.2015 for recall of the orders dated 30.03.1996 and 30.03.2015. The matter is still pending before the Consolidation Officer. In the meantime, the petitioners moved an application for summoning the original record of case no. 4556 decided on 30.03.1996 which was rejected by Consolidation Officer by the impugned order. 5. It may be mentioned that in the meantime the contesting respondents also filed Writ-B No. 38919 of 2015 for mandamus directing the Settlement Officer Consolidation for demarcation of chak as well as delivery of possession in pursuance of the order dated 30.03.1996. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.07.2015 directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the recall application of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months and in case the recall application is rejected then the Settlement Officer Consolidation be demarcate the chak of the respondents and deliver the possession. 6. The counsel for petitioners submits that the village has been notified under Section 52 of the Act on 27.03.1982. Thus the provisions of Section 52 (2) read with Rule 109A of U.P.C.H. Rules 1954 were not applicable and the recall application was allowed ex-parte without issuing any notice to the petitioners by order dated 09.01.1996. Although provisions of Rule 109A was not applicable but a belated application has been filed under Rule 109A on 11.03.2014 which has also been allowed ex-parte by order dated 30.03.2015. In such circumstances, the recall application of the petitioners was filed but the court below is proceeding in the matter under the pressure of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2015 and the order dated 16.07.2015 is a most arbitrary and harsh, inasmuch as without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to challenge the order passed in the recall application, Settlement Officer Consolidation has been directed to demarcate and handover the possession of the chak. He further submits that the petitioners has filed the recall application for recalling the order dated 30.03.1996 and for deciding the recall application the original record was necessary but the Consolidation Officer has illegally rejected the application of the petitioners for summoning the original record. 7. According to the counsel for respondents the original record of Case no. 4556/2220 decided on 30.03.1996 is attached with the restoration proceeding before the Consolidation Officer. 7. According to the counsel for respondents the original record of Case no. 4556/2220 decided on 30.03.1996 is attached with the restoration proceeding before the Consolidation Officer. However on the basis of the report that the case is not registered in Goswara Register, the petitioners are misguiding the courts below. In such circumstances, the application for summoning the original record has been rejected. 8. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties. 9. A perusal of the order dated 22.08.2015 shows that it is an interlocutory order, as such in case without looking the original record of Case no. 4556/2220 decided on 30.03.1996, the recall application is decided by the Consolidation Officer, it can be challenged by the petitioner in the appeal filed against it. As such it is not necessary for this Court to interfere in the interlocutory order. 10. So far as the arguments of counsel for petitioners in view of the notification of village under Section 52 on 2703.1982 neither the recall application was maintainable nor the application under Rule 109A maintainable is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in Gopi Singh Vs. D.D.C. & Others 1967 RD 2014 (DB), Ram Bahadur Vs. D.D.C. & Others 1974 RD 53 (DB) and Single Judge in Siddh Narain Vs. D.D.C. & Others 2007 (103) RD 627 have held that if the right or liability of the parties had arisen by the order of Consolidation Authorities during continuation of the proceeding then irrespective of notification under Section 52 had taken place the recall application, appeal and revision can be filed against the order of Consolidation Authorities. As such there is no substance in the arguments of counsel for petitioners in this respect. 11. Admittedly the land in dispute belonged to Raja Ram. The petitioners claimed as heirs of Raj Ram under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The contesting respondents derived their title on the basis of Will executed by Raja Ram in favour of his widow, daughter and son-in-law. 11. Admittedly the land in dispute belonged to Raja Ram. The petitioners claimed as heirs of Raj Ram under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The contesting respondents derived their title on the basis of Will executed by Raja Ram in favour of his widow, daughter and son-in-law. It is but natural that after death of Raj Ram, his wife may get possession of the land in dispute as she was alive and was preferential heir of Raj Ram as such this Court is inclined to postpone the effect of the order dated 16.07.2015 passed in Writ-B No. 38919 of 2015 as the heirs of Raj Ram will be deprived from their possession due to the pendency of the litigation. 12. The remaining arguments raised by counsel for petitioners has need not be decided by this Court as it may be prejudice of the restoration application filed by the petitioners. 13. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.