JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.10.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the consolidation proceedings started by the consolidation officer in the year 1981-82. 3. Claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has inherited the land by way of succession over the land to Plot Nos. 1515, 1545, 1978, 1945, 1944, 1975 and 1977 besides other plots. 4. During the allotment of Chak proceedings the petitioner has been allotted Chak No. 189 over Plot Nos. 1942, 1945, 1978, 1943 and 1944. 5. According to the petitioner the opposite party, namely, Istakhar was allotted Chak No. 63 over Plot Nos. 1486, 1481, 1418 and 1477. The opposite party, Istakhar has filed an objection before the consolidation officer with regard to the Plot Nos. 1456 and 1457 which belongs to the opposite party No. 2. The consolidation officer has rejected the objection of the opposite party No. 2 vide his order dated 20.4.1981. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.1981 passed by the consolidation officer the opposite party No. 2 has filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation before whom he has claimed that the Chak on Plot Nos. 1456 and 1457 belong to him. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation granted an opportunity of being heard to the respective parties and after making the local inspection of the plots in question has found that the appeal which has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 is based on no ground as such it has been rejected. However an offer has been given by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation to the opposite party No. 2 that in case if he wishes to have a Chak on Plot No. 2003, which was initially allotted to the present petitioner he can opt the same. 7. The opposite party No. 2 has declined to accept the said proposal of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In view of the aforesaid, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has held that the Chak originally allotted to the opposite party No. 2 has been correctly and rightly allotted to him and accordingly the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 2 has been dismissed vide order dated 22.9.1981. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has held that the Chak originally allotted to the opposite party No. 2 has been correctly and rightly allotted to him and accordingly the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 2 has been dismissed vide order dated 22.9.1981. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 22.9.1981 the opposite party No. 2 had filed the revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the revision the opposite party No. 2 has prayed for allotment of Chak on Plot Nos. 1456, 1457 and 1462. 9. According to the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the Revisional Proceedings though the petitioner was the party but neither any notice has been issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor the opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner as such the Deputy Direction of Consolidation has proceeded to pass the ex-parte impugned order on 22.4.1982 by which the said revision filed by the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on no evidence nor even the same is based on the prayer made by the opposite party No. 2 in his revision. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the revision the opposite party No. 2 has prayed for allotment of Chak of Plot Nos. 1456, 1457 and 1462 whereas against the aforesaid proposed Chak the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted the original plots of the petitioner in favour of the opposite party No. 2. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has affected by the impugned order not only for the reasons that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner but also that the Chaks allotted originally to the petitioner has been disturbed and are allotted without even any request made by the opposite party No. 2. In view of the aforesaid reasons the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.10.1982 by which order the petitioner’s original plots have been allotted in favour of the opposite party No. 2. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.10.1982 by which order the petitioner’s original plots have been allotted in favour of the opposite party No. 2. 12. Since an ex parte proceedings are being carried out by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing the order dated 21.10.1982 a restoration application has been filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner has prayed for recall of the ex parte order dated 21.10.1982. 13. The petitioner’s restoration application has been heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation however the same is rejected vide order dated 25.4.1984. While rejecting the restoration application the Deputy Director of Consolidation has clearly mentioned that the order has been passed in presence of both the parties and further that there are signature of the petitioner (Chhedi Tewari). Against the original order as well as the order passed on the restoration application of the petitioner dated 25.4.1984 the present writ petition has been filed. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed the following interim stay order-: “Issue notice. Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated 21.10.1982 shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. Order Date : 7.11.1984.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the said alleged signature of the petitioner and further submitted that neither the petitioner was present at the time of hearing held on 21.10.1982 nor he has authorised any counsel to represent him before the D.D.C. The petitioner has filed a supplementary-affidavit by which he has disputed the contents so made in the order dated 25.4.1984 as well as order dated 21.10.1982. 15. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the D.D.C. has proceeded to decide the restoration application on wrong assumption of fact that the restoration application has been filed by the petitioner on 21.10.1982, i.e. the day when the order has been passed by the D.D.C., whereas the facts remain that the restoration application has been admittedly filed on 22.10.1982. 16. Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel is present on behalf of the opposite party No. 3, Munner. 16. Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel is present on behalf of the opposite party No. 3, Munner. Since no one is present on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and further that the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that he is in possession of the disputed plot in pursuance of the interim order dated 7.11.1984 and that the impugned order of the D.D.C. is stayed by this Court, both the petitioner and the respective respondents are in possession of the plots which were subject-matter at the time of revisional proceedings. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, there remains no reasons to keep the present writ petition pending as this writ petition has been filed in the year 1984 i.e. about 34 years ago and admittedly the petitioner as well as the opposite parties are in possession of the plots allotted to them. Since no one is present on behalf of the respondent No. 2 nor the respondent No. 2 is interested to participate in these proceedings, in view of the aforesaid the present writ petition is allowed. The interim order dated 7.11.1984 is confirmed. 18. It is made clear that this order will not effect the possession of the respondent No. 3.