JUDGMENT & ORDER : Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. Heard Sri M. E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for a direction to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for expediting the proceedings of Appeal No. 483 (Chandrawati Devi Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh) filed under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a stipulated period of time. 3. A direction to opposite party no. 1 to 3 has been sought for implementing the order dated 17.06.2017 passed by Consolidation Officer in furtherance of an interim order dated 22.05.2017 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in the pending appeal preferred by the petitioners arising out of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.07.2013. 4. Insofar as the Appeal No. 483 directed against the order dated 23.7.2013 is concerned, the same was entertained by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 26.08.2013 according to which the implementation of the impugned order passed by Consolidation Officer on 23.7.2013 was stayed. 5. Thus, the revenue record as it existed on the date of passing of the order by Consolidation Officer on 23.7.2013 was to remain intact. 6. According to the petitioners on the date when the Consolidation Officer rendered the decision dated 23.07.2013, the name of late Janardan Pandey was recorded and upon his death, several claims have cropped up on the basis of wills, gift deed and inheritance. The order dated 23.07.2013 was passed ex-parte as against several other claimants but insofar as the petitioners and opposite party no. 4 are concerned, they were duly heard. The petitioners claimed their rights on the basis of an unregistered will and the matter is pending at the appellate stage under Section 11 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Appeal No. 483. 7. During pendency of the appeal, it appears that opposite party no. 4 made an application before the Consolidation Officer for implementation of the order dated 23.07.2013 but on account of the interim order dated 26.08.2013, by which the implementation of the order dated 23.07.2013 was stayed, the proceedings do not appear to have materialised. Later on, an application was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for vacation of interim order dated 26.08.2013 which was allowed by order dated 16.05.2017. 8. Later on, an application was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for vacation of interim order dated 26.08.2013 which was allowed by order dated 16.05.2017. 8. On the premise of order dated 16.05.2017 read with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.07.2013, fresh application before the Consolidation Officer came to be filed again on the basis of which an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 20.05.2017 for carrying out the necessary correction in the revenue record. 9. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 20.05.2017 allowed the application and in furtherance thereof, the Consolidation Officer on the same very date, appears to have entered the said order in the khatauni and altered the position as it existed on 23.07.2013. 10. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order dated 16.05.2017 filed an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation afresh and it appears that the order dated 16.05.2017 was stayed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the pending appeals in 22.5.2017. 11. Once the order dated 16.05.2017 was stayed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 22.5.2017, the petitioners claim that the previous order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 26.08.2013 would stand revived and understanding the revival of order dated 26.08.2013 in the manner stated above, an application was filed before the Consolidation Officer for restoration of the entry in the khatauni as it existed prior to 20.5.2017. 12. The Consolidation Officer having regard to the contentions set out, passed an order dated 17.06.2017 whereby the order dated 20.5.2017 passed by the same very authority was cancelled. Once the order dated 20.5.2017 was cancelled, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a consequence thereof, the order dated 20.5.2017 ought to have been expunged by the Consolidation Officer from the revenue record and the revenue record was bound to be restored as it existed on 23.07.2013 meaning thereby that the name of Janardan Pandey would exist in the revenue record. 13. The fact remains that Janarardan Pandey as on date is no more alive and it is equally true that the order dated 20.05.2017 has been cancelled by the Consolidation Officer on 17.06.2017 having regard to the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, is no more on record. 14. 13. The fact remains that Janarardan Pandey as on date is no more alive and it is equally true that the order dated 20.05.2017 has been cancelled by the Consolidation Officer on 17.06.2017 having regard to the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, is no more on record. 14. Be it noted that two revisions have come to be filed; one against the order dated 22.05.2017 and the other against the order dated 17.06.2017 before the Deputy Director Consolidation and both the revisions are pending and no interim order has been passed. It is in the above background that the petitioners have prayed for expunction of the order dated 20.05.2017 from the revenue record for the purpose of restoration of the revenue entry as it existed on 23. 07. 2017. 15. Restoration of revenue record in the name of a dead person as on date, would be a futile exercise for the reason that all claimants, whether on the premise of will deed, gift deed or inheritance are before the court. 16. For protection of the rights of the rival parties, it would be desirable that during pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, none of the parties to the proceedings may alienate the property or encumber the same in any manner whatsoever. It is ordered accordingly. 17. With the above observations and direction, the Settlement Officer Consolidation is further directed to expedite the proceedings of appeal no. 483 and other connected appeals and after putting all the parties to notice. The appellate proceedings may be decided expeditiously and not later than a period of nine months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the court concerned. 18. Entry of the direction in the preceding para, protecting interest of rival parties, be carried out in the revenue record forthwith by the Consolidation Officer which shall abide by the decision of appeals pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 19. In case any of the affected parties have any grievance against the order passed by this Court in the present petition, it shall be open to any such party to make an application for modification or clarification as may be permissible under law. 20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.