JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard Sri Prahlad Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 7.6.2005 and 30.6.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki, in Revision No. 760 and in restoration application moved thereafter respectively. 3. The case of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is that a Chak was allotted in the name of Ishwardeen, the father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 11.5.2000, an Appeal was filed by Ishwardeed claiming that he may be allotted one Chak on Gata No. 32 which was his original holding. The Appeal was rejected on 20.6.2001. Thereafter, Ishwardeen died and the heirs of Ishwardeen, i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed a Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki against the order dated 20.6.2001. The said Revision was dismissed in default on 23.7.2002, thereafter, it was restored on the application made by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 4. During the pendency of the Revision, the father of the petitioner died on 13.4.2005 but the revisionist did not substitute the petitioners. The order dated 7.6.2005 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki against the dead person and without hearing the petitioners, which has affected the petitioners who are the Chakdar No. 264. An application for restoration was filed by the petitioners on 27.6.2005 stating that the father of the petitioners had died on 13.4.2005 but the said application for restoration has also been rejected on 13.6.2006. 5. In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the application for restoration and the order passed thereon on 30.6.2006 are being filed as Annexure-5 and 6 respectively to the petition. 6. This Court has perused annexure-5, which is a copy of the written arguments filed on 30.6.2006 by the petitioners and annexure-6, which is the order dated 30.6.2006. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has deliberately not filed the copy of the application alleged to have been filed on 27.6.2005 in the petition, as has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 8. It is the case of respondent Nos. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has deliberately not filed the copy of the application alleged to have been filed on 27.6.2005 in the petition, as has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 8. It is the case of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 that the father of the petitioners died on 13.9.2005 and not on 13.4.2005 and the date with regard to the death of the father of the petitioners has been manipulated by the petitioners. It has also been stated in paragraph-8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have been given Chak of the original holding i.e. plot No. 32 and Annexure-6 i.e. the order dated 30.6.2006 has been passed on an application submitted by one Chandrika s/o. Nand Lal for recall of the order dated 7.6.2005 and not on the application of the petitioners as alleged in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition. 9. When confronted with this argument and with the specific query of this Court as to why the application of the petitioners for restoration of the case has not been filed, although the statement regarding this has been made in the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence the same could not be filed and he may be given time to file a supplementary affidavit. 10. It has been stated by Sri Prahlad Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that a certified copy of the said restoration application is available with him. The certified copy of the application for restoration filed by the petitioners has been produced before this Court. 11. This Court has perused the certified copy of the restoration application. It is evident from the said application that it was filed on 19.10.2005 and on the same day, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has marked the application to the, peshkar concerned to keep it on record and fixed the date on 27.10.2005 for its consideration. The said restoration application is kept on record. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that if the record relating to the case is summoned, it would be evident that the father of the petitioners was heard while passing the order impugned. This Court has perused the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the respondent No. 1. The said restoration application is kept on record. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that if the record relating to the case is summoned, it would be evident that the father of the petitioners was heard while passing the order impugned. This Court has perused the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the respondent No. 1. It is evident therefrom that the respondent No. 1 although has stated in the order impugned that the advocates of both the parties were heard, the submissions made by the Advocate of the petitioners' father Late Ram Dayal or even submissions made by the Advocate of Chandrika and others have not been noted in the order impugned. Only the demand of revisionist has been considered. 13. The finding of the learned Courts below have also not been considered or set aside specifically. 14. The order dated 7.6.2005 passed by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 30.6.2006, rejecting the recall application of one Chandrika allegedly filed on 27.6.2005, being non-speaking and un-reasoned are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki, to consider afresh the Revision filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 s/o. Ishwardeen (chakdar No. 14) and also the petitioner's heirs of chakdar No. 264 and any other person who was a party to the Revision, for example, Chandrika and others and then pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. 15. Since the parties have appeared before this Court, it is expected that an appropriate substitution application shall be filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 substituting the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and then appropriate orders will be passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, say, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 16. The writ petition is allowed only to this extent.