JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. All the above writ petitions (except writ petition No. 355 (Cons.) of 2015) involve common issues, therefore, all these writ petitions (except writ petition No. 355 (Cons.) of 2015) are being decided by a Common order. For reference, Writ Petition No. 470 (Cons.) of 2015 has been treated as the leading case. 2. Writ petition No. 355 (Cons.) of 2015 is detached from the bunch of above writ petitions. List/put up this case tomorrow for hearing. 3. These proceedings arises out of the proceedings under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 wherein title was claimed on the basis of a Will and consequent transfer thereof by the legatee in favour of the respondents herein. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who claims to be a tenure holder and also claims to be still alive and also that she never executed the Will was not heard before the consolidation officer (C.O.). She claims that she came to know about the Will and the consequential orders in favour of the respondent and the alleged legatees only when an attempt was made to prevent her from cutting the crop on the plots in question, therefore, she challenged the order of the consolidation officer dated 6.5.1988 by filing an appeal under section 11(1) before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C.), which was allowed, the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved the respondents herein filed a revision which was allowed on 10.12.2014 with the observation that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had not considered the question of delay properly and had cursorily condoned 22 years delay in the matter, accordingly, the matter was remanded to the appellate stage. 6. Being aggrieved against this order the petitioner has come before this court alleging that there was no reason for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to interfere with the remand order by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, as the Consolidation Officer was in a better position to adjudicate the dispute which would enable the petitioner(s) to lead evidence before him and thereafter, if aggrieved, avail the remedy of appeal, as, the petitioner had not been heard at the Consolidation Officer level. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the question of delay in filing the appeal itself not having been decided appropriately, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on this question and it is only thereafter that the merits can be considered. Counsel for the respondents also submits that some order has been passed in their favour under section 145 Cr.P.C. 8. The dispute herein is as to whether the testator was alive when the Will was sought to be implemented by the alleged legatees by getting their names recorded in the revenue records based thereon, as, if it was so, then all subsequent proceedings would be fraudulent and a nullity in the eyes of law. In these circumstances, the insistence of the respondent who is a subsequent purchaser that first of all the delay in filing the appeal should be adjudicated, does not appear to be reasonable, especially as, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein i.e. the alleged testator claims that she is still alive, therefore, the delay on her part in raising an objection can also be considered at the Consolidation Officer's level and is interlinked with the merits of the issue referred hereinabove i.e. whether the testator was alive or dead, therefore, it is not possible for this court to accept the contentions of the respondents that the question of delay should be considered first, whether it be at the Appellate Stage or at the Consolidation Officer's level, as, both the issues are intertwined inextricably, requiring an adjudication on both the issues simultaneously. Moreover, this does not prejudice the respondents in any manner, as, if ultimately, it is decided that the Will was got implemented when the testator had died, then the question of delay will pale into insignificance, however, if it is found that she was very much alive, then the respondents would have no legs to stand whatever the delay may be, as has already been mentioned hereinabove. 9. As far as the respondents' contention that the persons to whom the holding was bequeathed by the testator will also have to be heard is quite justified, therefore, the Consolidation Officer shall take this aspect into consideration and hear them out also. 10. 9. As far as the respondents' contention that the persons to whom the holding was bequeathed by the testator will also have to be heard is quite justified, therefore, the Consolidation Officer shall take this aspect into consideration and hear them out also. 10. With the above observations the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside. The matter shall stand restored to the Consolidation Officer in the light of the observations made hereinabove, who shall adjudicate the matter after hearing the parties concerned as aforesaid, in accordance with law, within eight months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. 11. Till the disposal of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer status quo with regard to the plots in question as existing on the spot as on date and also regarding the entries in the revenue records shall be maintained. Furthermore, none of the parties shall alienate the land in question. The writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.