JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent no.1 and Sri P.K.Govil, learned counsel appearing for the caveator. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have come up to this Court challenging the order of the revisional court by which the application of the petitioners for restoration of order dated 27.1.2015 has been rejected. The petitioners claim is that they are in possession of plot no.134 on the basis of patta granted to them with transferable right. In consolidation proceedings the area of plot no.134 was reduced which was challenged by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings the petitioners sold certain portion of plot no.134 in favour of Smt. Shanti Tripathi. The opposite parties made an application that since the petitioners have sold the property to Smt. Shanti Tripathi, their names be deleted and the matter be considered with the name of Smt. Shanti Tripathi. The petitioners moved an application for restoration that the area that has been sold is the only portion of the total area and the petitioners still have interest in plot no.134 and, therefore, their names should not be deleted from the proceedings. That application has been rejected. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. In my view, it would be appropriate that while deciding Revision No. 24 of 2013 under Section 48 of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, the claim of the petitioners should also be considered. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioners will be allowed to be heard regarding their rights with regard to remaining portion of the land in plot no.134. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above order.