JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri S.C. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shambavi Nandan counsel for the respondent no.4, and Shri R.C. Upadhaya counsel for the respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 42(A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. These proceedings were drawn for expunging the name of the petitioners, recorded on the basis of allotments made in their favour, sometime in the year 1976. 3. The application under Section 42(A), was allowed, and the name of the petitioners were ordered to be expunged. 4. It is submitted that against this order, the petitioners preferred revision no.102, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 02.01.1984 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh consideration. 5. It appears that thereafter Writ Petition No. 30768 of 2016 was filed before this Court and certain observations were made, while disposing of the said writ petition, vide order dated 02.09.2016. Whereby liberty was granted to the State and the Gaon Sabha to apply for recall of the order dated 02.01.1984, passed by the D.D.C. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, a restoration application was filed by the State. 7. This restoration application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 07.12.2016, and the order of the DDC dated 02.01.1984 has been set aside and the revision dismissed. 8. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was only considering the restoration application. Therefore, when he came to the conclusion that the restoration application was liable to be allowed, he should thereafter have afforded opportunity to the petitioners to make submissions on the merits of the revision itself. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner has substance. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also not been able to convince this Court that the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is not liable to be accepted. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 07.12.2016 is modified to the extent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may hear the parties afresh on the merits of their rival claims decide the revision no.102 strictly in accordance with law. 11. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 07.12.2016 is modified to the extent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may hear the parties afresh on the merits of their rival claims decide the revision no.102 strictly in accordance with law. 11. It is further provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation before deciding the revision afresh shall summon the record of the earlier proceedings and to examine the same, as he is exercising revisional powers under Section 48 of the Act and it is settled law that a revision cannot be decided finally without summoning and examining the Lower Court record, as has been repeatedly held, by this Court. 12. This is being issued also because it has been submitted that during the pendency of the restoration application, the petitioner had filed an application for summoning the relevant Lower Court record which application was rejected on the reasoning that only a restoration application was being considered and not the revision itself. 13. It is further provided, that the imposition of fine etc. by the order impugned, shall be kept in abyance and the same shall abide by the final order to be passed in the revision after hearing the parties. It necessarily follows that in case the revision is decided in favour of the revisionists petitioners there would be no justification of any fine. 14. It is also provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall, positively, decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. He shall proceed with the matter without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties thereafter and in case necessity arises, he must proceed to hear the matter on a day to day basis so as to pass final orders within the time specified above. 15. Subject to the above directions/ observations, this writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 stands modified to the extent, as above.