JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh for the petitioners and Sri C. S. Agnihotri along with Sri Rahul Singh for respondent-2. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of DDC dated 14.3.2016 and 14.9.2016 by which earlier orders dated 10.2.2014 and 10.3.2014 were recalled. 3. During consolidation, petitioners were allotted chak no. 7 while Savitri Devi, respondent-2 was allotted chak no. 1027. The chak of the petitioners was in north and chak of respondent-2 was in south of the chak of the petitioners and in south of chak of respondent-2 there was a chak road. 4. It is alleged that petitioners moved an application before DDC for widening chak road carved out in south of the chak no. 1027. On this application a report was called for and DDC by order dated 21.2.1986 allowed the application and chak road was widen taking an area of 0.029 hectare from chak no. 1027 belonging to respondent-2 and she was compensated this area from chak of the petitioners i.e. chak no. 7. The valuation of this land was allotted to the petitioners on plot nos. 1215 and 1216, where the petitioners were having their second chak. 5. It is alleged that the petitioners along with Savitri Devi, respondent-2 moved an application on 1.8.2012 for recalling the order dated 21.2.1986. On this application the order dated 10.2.2014 was passed treating this application as compromise between the parties and an area of 0.029 hectare which was given to chak no. 1027 by the order of DDC dated 21.2.1986 was taken away and given in the chak of the petitioners and respondent-2 was allotted its valuation on the bachat land. In pursuance of the order dated 10.2.2014 amendment chart was prepared on 10.3.2014 and respondent-2 was allotted valuation on plot nos. 1215 and 1216. Thereafter respondent-2 moved an application for recall of the orders dated 10.2.2014 and 10.3.2014 along with delay condonation application. In the recall application, it has been stated that as the demand for widening the chak road was made by the petitioners on which the order dated 21.2.1986 was passed as such respondent-2 was given land from the petitioners' chak and the petitioners were allotted its valuation on plot nos. In the recall application, it has been stated that as the demand for widening the chak road was made by the petitioners on which the order dated 21.2.1986 was passed as such respondent-2 was given land from the petitioners' chak and the petitioners were allotted its valuation on plot nos. 1215 and 1216 and after such a long time by practising fraud and under his fabricated thumb impression, the application was filed on 1.8.2012 on which the collusive orders were secured on 10.2.1014 and 10.3.2014. When the application was put up before DDC, the petitioners were not present and DDC was satisfied with the allegations made by respondent-2 and she by order dated 14.3.2016, recalled the orders dated 10.2.2014 and 10.3.2014. The petitioners moved an application for recalling the order dated 14.3.2016, which was rejected by DDC by subsequent order dated 14.9.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. DDC in the order dated 14.9.2016 held that Savitri Devi, respondent-2 has filed her affidavit stating therein that her thumb impression on the application was fabricated and without giving any notice to her advocate, the orders dated 10.2.2014 and 10.3.2014 were passed. Although the order was passed after hearing the parties on 21.2.1986 as such subsequent order amounts to review of the earlier order. On this finding she rejected the recall application of the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 14.3.2016. The effect of the order dated 14.3.2016 is that application of the petitioners will be hear on merit. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 8. The case of respondent -2 was that by the order dated 21.2.1986, the road lying in southern side of her chak was widen on the application of the petitioners as such land which was taken from the chak of respondent-2 for widening the chak road was compensated in the chak of respondent-2 at the same place and the land taken from the chak of the petitioners was allotted to them in their second chak on plot no.s 1215 and 1216. In such circumstances, there was no need to Savitri Devi to file recall application on 1.8.2012. She has denied her thumb impression on the recall application and her allegation has been accepted by DDC. In such circumstances, there was no need to Savitri Devi to file recall application on 1.8.2012. She has denied her thumb impression on the recall application and her allegation has been accepted by DDC. By the impugned order, the earlier order has been recalled and the petitioners will be heard on merit again as such no interference is required by this Court. 9. However, it is provided that while deciding the matter afresh DDC may consider all the materials on record without being influenced with the earlier orders as well as findings recorded in it. 10. The writ petition is dismissed.