JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Upadhyay for the caveator. 2. In the facts of the case counsel for the caveator does not propose to file counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is decided finally. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 6.2.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.3.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 4. The dispute between the parties is for allotment of chak on plot no.1146, area 0.020 hectare, which is the land of graveyard. During consolidation graveyard was not excluded and its valuation was determined. From the stage of Consolidation Officer, the land of graveyard was allotted in the chak of Ajai Kumar. Therefore, Ajai Kumar filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 6.2.2014 found that the graveyard has been illegally allotted in the chak of Ajai Kumar as such there may be communal riot if it will remain in the chak of Ajai Kumar. On this finding, he allowed the appeal and allotted chak to Ajai Kumar on the other portion of plot no.1147 while the portion of graveyard along with plot no.1142 and 1148, which were allotted in the chak of Ajai Kumar were allotted in the chak of Smt. Shakeela Begum. Smt. Shakeela Begum filed a revision against the aforesaid order. In the revision Smt. Shakeela Begum had stated that after allotment of chak she had developed the portion of plot no.1147 and made it very fertile. By order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.9.2013 area of her plot no.928 was found 0.071 hectare in place of 0.051 hectare as such valuation of this area be also included in her chak allotted on plot no.1147. The, revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 11.7.2014. A perusal of the order indicates that area of plot no.928, which was enhanced by order of Consolidation Officer was not adjusted in the chak of Smt. Shakeela Begum. Ajai Kumar filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order stating therein that the land of graveyard has again been allotted in his chak and it should be excluded. A perusal of the order indicates that area of plot no.928, which was enhanced by order of Consolidation Officer was not adjusted in the chak of Smt. Shakeela Begum. Ajai Kumar filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order stating therein that the land of graveyard has again been allotted in his chak and it should be excluded. On the application of Ajai Kumar Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order dated 18.3.2016 by which the position of the stage of SOC has been restored. Hence, this petition has been filed. 5. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that after decision on merit in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11.7.2014, he has no jurisdiction to recall or review his order. Therefore, the order dated 18.3.2016 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 6. Apart from the aforesaid point, it has also been noticed that petitioner claimed area of plot no.928 as enhanced by order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.9.2013 but Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 11.7.2014 has not adverted to this demand of the petitioner. In the circumstances both the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer are liable to be set aside. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.7.2014 and 18.3.2016 are set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur, who shall hear the parties and decide the revision afresh in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. For a period of three months the parties are directed to maintain status on the spot.