JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh for the petitioners and Sri Rudra Mani Shukla for the caveator. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.2014, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.6.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.11.2015. 3. The petitioners filed an objection on the basis of Will dated 4.6.1981 allegedly executed by Fateh Bahadur Singh in his favour for recording their names over the property left by Fateh Bahadur Singh. It is alleged that objection of the petitioners was allowed by order dated 6.12.2013. The petitioners filed an application for recording their names over the land in dispute on the basis of order dated 6.12.2013 which was allowed by order dated 24.12.2013. 4. Thereafter the contesting respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 24.12.2013 on the ground that the order dated 6.12.2013 has already been recalled on 19.12.2013 thus on the date of the order dated 24.12.2013 the order has already been recalled and name of the petitioners could not have been recorded on its basis. The recall application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 6.1.2014. The appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioners have also been dismissed by orders dated 25.6.2015 and 30.11.2015 respectively. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners are claiming their right on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Fateh Bahadur Singh. The order dated 6.12.2013 by which their Will was accepted and they were held to be legal representatives of Fateh Bahadur Singh, has already been recalled on 19.12.2013. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 19.12.2013 was an exparte order and has been passed without hearing the petitioners. 6. In respect of the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the caveator states that subsequently the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.12.2013 in revision and the matter has been remanded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the recall application of the contesting respondents afresh. Thereafter after hearing the parties the Consolidation Officer again by order dated 10.12.2014 recalled the order dated 6.12.2013. Thus the order dated 6.12.2013 has already been recalled as such by the impugned order, it was given effect to, has been nullified. 7. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. Thereafter after hearing the parties the Consolidation Officer again by order dated 10.12.2014 recalled the order dated 6.12.2013. Thus the order dated 6.12.2013 has already been recalled as such by the impugned order, it was given effect to, has been nullified. 7. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed