JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri Ram Das Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Rai holding brief of Shri Pradeep Singh, who has filed a caveat on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5, who alone are interested parties in this writ petition. 2. Respondent no.6, in my considered opinion, is not a necessary party, nor a proper party in this writ petition, which pertains to implementation of an order dated 08.02.2000, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, in an Appeal No.828, under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Manbir Bahadur Vs. Gaon Sabha and others. 3. It appears that the petitioner, filed an application for implementation of the order, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation aforementioned, by means of an application, under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules. This order is stated to have become final as it was not challenged, thereafter. 4. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 18.01.2014 directed implementation of this order and issued a Parwana amaldaramad for the purpose. 5. The order of the Consolidation Officer, has been set aside by the impugned order dated 25.07.2016, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. By this order, two revisions filed by the respondent no.5 were allowed, and the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 18.01.2014 and also the order dated 18.02.2015, whereby a restoration application filed by the said respondent no.5, had been dismissed, were set aside. Hence, this petition. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision directed against the order dated 18.01.2014, passed by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the order sought to be implemented at the instance of the petitioner, by proceedings under Rule 109-A had already been implemented by the order dated 17.04.2013, passed in Reference No.440 and therefore, there was no justification for further orders for its implementation. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 08.02.2000, was never implemented on the spot. The order dated 17.04.2013, passed in Reference No.440 does not implement the order dated 08.02.2000. The Reference No.440 had been prepared for implementing an order dated 01.06.2000, passed by the Consolidation Officer, in Case Nos.2754 and 2758. This reference had absolutely nothing to do with the order dated 08.02.2000, which had been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, in Appeal No.828. 9. The Reference No.440 had been prepared for implementing an order dated 01.06.2000, passed by the Consolidation Officer, in Case Nos.2754 and 2758. This reference had absolutely nothing to do with the order dated 08.02.2000, which had been passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, in Appeal No.828. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, which required implementation on the spot, had been duly implemented, upon the acceptance of the Reference No.440 on 17.04.2013. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 11. The sole point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether or not, the appellate order dated 08.02.2000, passed in Appeal No.828 has been implemented on the spot, by means of Reference No.440 accepted on 17.04.2013. 12. The parties are at issue, on this point. 13. In the context of the submissions and in view of the controversy, which requires consideration. I have examined the correction table appended with the order dated 08.02.2000, which has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit. The reference order dated 17.04.2013 has been filed as annexure no.13 in the writ petition. The correction tables appended to these two orders clearly show that they are entirely different matters. 14. The reference order itself states that the reference had been prepared for implementation of the order dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The correction table appended along with the reference order indicates that the chaks of the Jhamman Lal (father of the petitioner) and Ahibaran Singh, respondent no.6, in this writ petition alone were modified thereby. 15. The correction table appended to the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, in Appeal No.828 reveals that it effects the chaks of the Manbir Bahadur, the petitioner, Kunwar Sen and Shyama Charan sons of Angan Lal, respondent nos.4 and 5 in this writ petition. 16. Besides, by this order dated 08.02.2000, plot nos.24, 29 & 30 were effected. These plots have not been effected by the reference order. 17. It therefore, stands established on record that the reference order dated 17.04.2013 did not pertain to and did not implement the order dated 08.02.2000, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in a chak appeal. 18. 16. Besides, by this order dated 08.02.2000, plot nos.24, 29 & 30 were effected. These plots have not been effected by the reference order. 17. It therefore, stands established on record that the reference order dated 17.04.2013 did not pertain to and did not implement the order dated 08.02.2000, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in a chak appeal. 18. For this reason alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 19. Although, it is also sought to be argued that this aspect had been considered by the High Court earlier, while deciding Writ Petition No.53416 of 2012, vide order dated 11.10.2012 but upon a perusal of this order of the writ Court, this Court does not agree with the submission made. 20. In the earlier writ petition, there appeared to be some confusion as to whether, the Reference No.440 was prepared to implement an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 01.06.2000 or to implement the appellate order dated 08.02.2000 and this controversy has not specifically been decided therein. 21. However, in view of the discussion in the earlier part of this judgment, this Court holds that Reference No.440 had been prepared for implementation of an order dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case Nos.2754 and 2758. It therefore, implemented a distinct and separate order, which has no connection with the order dated 08.02.2000, although, some of the parties in the two matters, may be similar / common. 22. The contention of Shri K.N. Rai, counsel for the respondent that when the share of the parties in the land allotted to them were modified, they were entitled for a change in the chaks allotted, the same was implemented by means of Reference No.440 and therefore, nothing further remained to be done by the Consolidation Authorities, in proceedings under Rule 109-A of the Rules. 23. This contention cannot be accepted. 24. The proceedings, under Rule 109-A are meant to implement the orders, passed by the Consolidation Authorities. There is nothing on record nor counsel for the respondent was able to place any material that would lead to even a prima-facie conclusion, that the order dated 08.02.2000, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in a chak Appeal had been implemented on the spot. 25. There is nothing on record nor counsel for the respondent was able to place any material that would lead to even a prima-facie conclusion, that the order dated 08.02.2000, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in a chak Appeal had been implemented on the spot. 25. It has also not the case of the respondent that this order has been set aside or modified by any superior Court. 26. The contention of counsel for the petitioner on the other hand that this order has attained finality. 27. Under the circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 18.01.2014 was a perfectly correct and a valid order and the same required no interference. 28. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on a misconception of facts and without examining as to whether, the Reference No.440 was for implementation of this order, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer passed under Rule 109-A. 29. In my considered opinion, interference by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was wholly unwarranted. 30. As already observed, Reference No.440 had been prepared to implement an order dated 01.06.2000, passed by the Consolidation Officer in two objections, namely, 2748 and 2754. 31. The order on the application, under Rule 109-A, filed by the petitioner was for implementing an order dated 08.02.2000, passed by the Consolidation officer, in a Chak Appeal. 32. There can be no co-relation between the orders passed in two separate cases merely because some of the parties in these cases may be common. Every single order, even if between the same common parties, which has attained finality, is necessarily required to be implemented in the revenue records and this is exactly what has been done by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 18.01.2014. 33. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.07.2016 is hereby quashed and the order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the Consolidation officer is affirmed. 34. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.