JUDGMENT : D.K. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 4. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 7.8.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao whereby the restoration application preferred by the petitioners has been rejected stating the reason that the order dated 24.9.2016 has been passed on merits and accordingly the Consolidation Courts do not have any jurisdiction to entertain any revision petition. 2. The facts of the case, which can be gathered from the pleadings available on record, are that on an objection filed under section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the consolidation officer vide his order dated 26.9.1998 ordered the land in question to be recorded in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as bhumidhar with non transferable rights. Against the said order dated 26.9.1998, the Gaon Sabha/State appears to have preferred appeal which was allowed vide order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kanpur Camp Unnao. The petitioners thereafter preferred the revision petition against the said order dated 31.8.2002 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 25.8.2009 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao. Against the said order dated 25.8.2009, the petitioners filed restoration application on 21.10.2009 stating therein that the revision petition filed by them was dismissed on 25.8.2009 in their absence for the reason that they could not attend the said proceedings on account of illness. The said application dated 21.10.2009 was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao, which was rejected by him vide order dated 24.9.2016 stating therein that application dated 21.10.2009 filed by the petitioners is, in fact a review petition and the Consolidation Courts do not have any jurisdiction to entertain any revision petition. 3. Thereafter the petitioners moved another application on 6.10.2016 seeking restoration of the case which has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 7.8.2018 observing therein that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 31.08.2002 relates to the land belonging to Gaon Sabha in which no rights can accrue in favour of any tenure holder and further that order passed by the Court below is based on merits. 4. 4. The reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the order impugned in this petition dated 7.8.2018 are not germane to the issue involved in this case. The petitioners had filed revision petition challenging the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was admittedly dismissed in default on 25.8.2009, against which the application seeking restoration of the revision petition was preferred by the petitioners on 21.10.2009. The said application was also rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 24.9.2016 giving absolutely misconceived reasons that the application dated 21.10.2009 moved by the petitioners was a review petition. Admittedly, the order dated 25.8.2009 is an ex parte order against which if any application for restoration is moved, the same could not be termed, by any stretch of imagination, to be an application seeking review. The reasons given in the impugned order dated 7.8.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are also absolutely misconceived. Instead of giving any finding on the facts narrated in the application dated 6.10.2016, learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has gone to the extent of giving finding that since the order dated 31.8.2002 was passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on merits and the land in question relates to Gaon Sabha in which no rights can be said to be accrued in favour of any tenure holder, as such the application dated 6.10.2016 was liable to be rejected. 5. As to whether the petitioners are able to establish any right in the land in question is an issue which would be decided in case revision petition is heard on merits. There is no dispute that the order dated 25.8.2009 was passed in absence of the petitioners and the restoration application dated 21.10.2009 could not be termed to be an application for review. 6. In view of the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 7.8.2018, 24.9.2016 and 25.8.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao, are hereby quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation on merits after giving notice to all concerned including Gaon Sabha. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation on merits after giving notice to all concerned including Gaon Sabha. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners shall be decided on merits, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Costs made easy.