JUDGMENT : RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. 1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena and Sri Rajeev Mishra, for the petitioners, Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.05.2017, allowing recall application and recalling order dated 17.11.2016 dismissing the revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot nos. 156, 157 and 171 of village Dhanauli, pargana and district Agra. It is alleged that in basic consolidation record, disputed land was recorded in the name of Chheda Lal. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 15.09.1961, directed for recording the name of Nathu Ram (the father of the petitioners) as co-tenure holder of Chheda Lal (grand father of respondent-3), having share each. 4. Brijendra Singh Rawat (respondent-3) filed an appeal on 20.06.2016 (registered as Appeal No. 226) under Section 11 of the Act, from the order dated 15.09.1961, along with delay condonation application. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 13.07.2016, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Brijendra Singh Rawat (respondent-3) filed a revision [registered as Revision No. 218 of 2015-16 (141 of 2016-17)], from the aforesaid orders. Deputy Director of Consolidation, dismissed the revision by order dated 17.11.2016. 5. Brijendra Singh Rawat (respondent-3) filed an application dated 26.11.2016, for recall of the order dated 17.11.2016 and restoring the revision to its original number. Thereafter, Brijendra Singh Rawat (respondent-3) filed an application for transferring the recall application from the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation. District Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 16.03.2017, transferred the recall application before him. After hearing the parties, he by order dated 18.05.2017 found that Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on ground that it was time barred although revision was filed within time. In the revision, an application dated 08.09.2016, was filed for impleadment of some parties, which was pending and without its disposal, revision was dismissed. Arguments in the revision was not heard before order dated 17.11.2016. On these findings, he allowed recall application, recalled order dated 17.11.2016 and restored the revision to its original number. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. Arguments in the revision was not heard before order dated 17.11.2016. On these findings, he allowed recall application, recalled order dated 17.11.2016 and restored the revision to its original number. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Brijendra Singh Rawat (respondent-3) had himself filed the revision. In revision, written arguments were filed by the parties. Brijendra Singh Rawat (respondent-3) himself obtained an order dated 31.08.2016, expediting hearing of the revision from this Court. He instead of raising oral arguments, filed his written arguments. Deputy Director of Consolidation, examined the evidence on record, considered written arguments of the parties and by order dated 17.11.2016 dismissed the revision on merit. The order dated 17.11.2016 cannot be said to be an ex-parte order as the parties had already filed their written arguments as held by this Court in Single Misc. No. 6192 of 2015 Mohd. Asif Khan v. State of U.P. (decided on 16.11.2016). Recall application was filed on false allegations and not maintainable. There is no provision for review under the Act as held by Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Shivraji v. DDC and others 1997 (88) RD 562 (FB) and Smt. Anar Kali v. DDC and others 1997 (15) LCD 921 (FB). The order dated 18.05.2017 is without jurisdiction as after deciding the revision on 17.11.2016, the court has become functus officio. Recall application dated 26.11.2016 and Transfer application dated 21.12.2016 were filed and allowed in collusion of respondent-1. The appeal was filed on 20.06.2016 from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.09.1961. The appeal was mala fide. In any case there was no ground for condonation of inordinate delay of about 55 years and it was rightly dismissed as time barred. Impleadment application filed in revision was useless and was not pressed by respondent-3. After dismissal of the revision the allegations have been made during pendency of impleadment application, revision was illegally decided on merit. Order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.05.2017 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Madan Gopal, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 655, held that District Judge proceeded to decide the case on the basis of written arguments submitted by the parties. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Madan Gopal, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 655, held that District Judge proceeded to decide the case on the basis of written arguments submitted by the parties. Oral arguments could not be advanced because there was a strike of the members of the bar who abstained from appearing in the Court. It is perhaps for this reason that the District Judge thought that it was expedient to decide the case on the basis of written arguments. But in our view the issue involved in this case was such that the efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated. In Lalu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 8 SCC 593 , held that in administering justice, Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. The only thing which, according to us, is that the Special Judge has committed an error that after granting time for arguments, abruptly issued a notice informing the parties that the written arguments are to be submitted on or before 1-7-2013 and the judgment would be delivered on or before 15-7-2013. As observed earlier, inconvenience, if any, can be set at right by granting further time for arguments. 8. Section 48 of the Act, requires Deputy Director of Consolidation to allow the parties an opportunity of being heard. To provide an opportunity of hearing to the parties is mandatory for exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act. In view of law laid down by Supreme Court that written argument is no substitute of oral argument, I respectfully disagree with the view of Hon'ble Single Judge in Single Misc. No. 6192 of 2015 Mohd. Asif Khan v. State of U.P. (decided on 16.11.2016). If a judgment has been passed on the basis of written arguments without providing an opportunity of oral arguments then such a judgment can be treated to be passed in violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. 9. Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606 , held that the question whether a party must be heard before it is proceeded against is one of procedure and not of power in the sense in which the words are used in Section 11. 9. Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606 , held that the question whether a party must be heard before it is proceeded against is one of procedure and not of power in the sense in which the words are used in Section 11. The answer to the question is, therefore, to be found in sub-section (1) of Section 11 and not in sub-section (3) of Section 11. Furthermore, different considerations arise on review. The expression "review" is used in the two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that this court held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal. 10. If an order is passed in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 48 of the Act, which requires to provide an opportunity of being heard, the order may be an order on merit can be treated as an ex-parte order and has been passed without observing mandatory provisions of the law. In view of law laid down by Supreme Court, every tribunal has inherent power to recall an ex-parte order. Ratio of Full Benches of this Court in Smt. Shivraji and Smt. Anar Kali (supra) are applicable for the order passed on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and not to an ex-parte order. 11. In the present case, respondent-3 filed the revision and written arguments on 21.07.2016. On 28.07.2016, the petitioners appeared and they were given time for filing written arguments. Thereafter 04.08.2016, 11.08.2016, 01.09.2016, 08.09.2016, 15.09.2016, 22.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 06.10.2016 and 27.10.2016, were fixed. On these dates either Presiding Officer was not present or Advocates were on strike. On 06.10.2016, Deputy Director of Consolidation wrote a letter to District Deputy Director of Consolidation for transferring the revision from his Court to other Court. Thereafter 04.08.2016, 11.08.2016, 01.09.2016, 08.09.2016, 15.09.2016, 22.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 06.10.2016 and 27.10.2016, were fixed. On these dates either Presiding Officer was not present or Advocates were on strike. On 06.10.2016, Deputy Director of Consolidation wrote a letter to District Deputy Director of Consolidation for transferring the revision from his Court to other Court. Record of revision along with Letter No. 23 dated 06.10.2016 was produced before District Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20.10.2016. District Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 20.10.2016 declined to transfer the revision and returned the record of the revision to Deputy Director of Consolidation fixing 27.10.2016. On 27.10.2016, Presiding Officer was not present and 03.11.2016 was fixed. On 03.11.2016, judgment was reserved, allowing the parties two days time to file case law on the ground that the parties have filed their written arguments. A perusal of order sheet of the revision shows that no date was fixed for oral arguments nor oral arguments were heard. As such no opportunity for oral arguments was given, which was mandatory. As oral argument was not heard Deputy Director of Consolidation, in his order dated 17.11.2016, was misguided on fact that revision itself was time-barred although the revision was within time. In these circumstances, District Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly held that the order dated 17.11.2016 was an ex-parte order and recalled it. The order dated 18.05.2017 does not suffer from any illegality. The petitioners have an opportunity to argue the revision on merit. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.