JUDGMENT D.K. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Mishra and Mohd. Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Zahir Ahmad Khan and Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3. 2. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 07.11.2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the proceedings of revision petition No. 294/459, Dharm Raj and others v. Bhagwaney and others, under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, have been restored. 3. The facts of the case, as could be deduced from the pleadings of the record, are that on start of consolidation operation, the land in question was recorded in the name of Sheo Balak and Ram Dularey, sons of Agnoo. On publication of the notification under Section 9, an objection is said to have been preferred by one Bhagwaney, the deceased-respondent No. 4 stating therein that he has one-third share in the land in dispute. The claim by late. Bhagwaney was made in the land in dispute on his assertion that he along with Sheo Balak and Ram Dularey is the third son of the original tenure holder-Agnoo. The objection raised by late Bhagwaney was decided on the basis of conciliation by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 03.05.1982. Against the said order dated 03.05.1982, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners on 19.02.1991 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who dismissed the said appeal by passing an order dated 14.10.2004. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation while dismissing the appeal by means of order dated 14.10.2004 has stated the reason that the appeal was filed belatedly, however, no explanation for such delay was given. He also observed in his order that after 03.05.1982, the chaks might have been allocated and it cannot be presumed that appellants therein did not have knowledge. Appeal, thus, was dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. 4. Against the said order dated 14.10.2004, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioners filed revision petition No. 294/459, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Appeal, thus, was dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. 4. Against the said order dated 14.10.2004, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioners filed revision petition No. 294/459, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of his order dated 30.12.2005 allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders dated 14.10.2004 and 03.05.1982 passed respectively by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Assistant Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter back to the court of Consolidation Officer for decision in the matter afresh. 5. Late Bhagwaney had moved the restoration application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 07.11.2006. It is this order dated 07.11.2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the proceedings of revision petition have been restored, that is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the order dated 07.11.2006 has though restored the case, however, he has ignored the order passed earlier on 16.06.2006 whereby the restoration application moved by the deceased-respondent No. 4 was dismissed for non-prosecution. His submission is, thus, that once the restoration application was dismissed for non-prosecution by means of order dated 16.06.2006, it was not open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have passed the order dated 07.11.2006 which is under challenge herein without setting aside the order dated 16.06.2006. 7. I have perused the record available herein and have also heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties. 8. It is true that the appeal by the petitioners was filed after a considerable lapse of time, however, on perusal of the order dated 30.12.2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is clear that conciliation proceedings which are said to be the basis of the order dated 03.05.1982, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer have not been carried appropriately for the reason that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 30.12.2005 has recorded a categorical finding, on the basis of perusal of the record available before him, that it appears that the compromise was reduced in writing after signature/thumb impression on a plain paper was obtained. He has also recorded finding that on the compromise which was presented before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in place of late Bhagwaney, the name of one Bhagwandeen has been written. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded a finding that the order dated 03.05.1982 does not bear signature of the parties nor does it bear any thumb impression. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also found in the order dated 30.12.2005 that though the order by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is said to have been passed on 03.05.1982, however, ‘Amaldaramad’ of the said order is said to have been made by the Chakbandi Lekhpal on 17.0-9.1982, but the Consolidator appears to have submitted his report after the said date i.e. on 29.01.1983. 9. From the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 30.12.2005, it is clear that serious doubts have been expressed abut the conciliation proceedings which are said to be the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 03.05.1982. It is true that by the impugned order the revision petition has been restored, however, considering the fact that serious doubts on the conciliation proceedings which formed the basis of the order dated 03.05.1982, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer has arisen, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate that the matter is decided now by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the evidence which may be led by the parties who are claiming their right over the land in dispute. 10. It is also relevant to notice that while passing the impugned order dated 07.11.2006, the Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to have ignored the earlier order dated 16.06.2006 whereby the application moved by the deceased-respondent No. 4 for restoration was rejected for non-prosecution. 11. The respondents have completely failed to bring on record any order by which the order dated 16.06.2006 was set aside or the same was recalled. 11. The respondents have completely failed to bring on record any order by which the order dated 16.06.2006 was set aside or the same was recalled. Even if, it is presumed that the said order dated 16.06.2006 was set aside and it is only thereafter that the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded to pass fresh order which has resulted in the impugned order dated 07.11.2006, looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the serious doubts, which have emerged in this case, on the conciliation proceedings said to have been drawn by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which culminated in passing of the order dated 03.05.1982, I deem it appropriate to remit the entire matter back to the Consolidation Officer for decision of the respective claim of the parties afresh on the basis of evidence which may be adduced before him. 12. The Court finds yet another reason to direct the Consolidation Officer to decide the respective claims of the parties and the reason is that before the Consolidation Officer, all the parties concerned who have any claim to the land in question, will have ample opportunity of leading evidence and putting forth their respective cases. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is hereby allowed. The order dated 07.11.2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, as is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, in Revision Petition No. 294/459, Dharam Raj and others v. Bhagwaney and others is hereby quashed. The Consolidation Officer concerned is directed to decide the respective claims of the parties afresh by providing an opportunity to the parties concerned of putting forth their respective claims and leading evidence which may be adduced by the parties. The Consolidation Officer is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further provided that any proceeding which might have been drawn during this period under Rule 109/109A will abide by the final outcome of the proceedings which would now be drawn and concluded by the Consolidation Officer under this order. 14. It is further provided that any proceeding which might have been drawn during this period under Rule 109/109A will abide by the final outcome of the proceedings which would now be drawn and concluded by the Consolidation Officer under this order. 14. Since the parties are represented through counsel in this case before this court, it is directed that parties shall appear before the Consolidation Officer concerned on 24.05.2017 and no further notice shall be required to be served upon by the Consolidation Officer. 15. There will be no order as to costs.