JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. Both these petitions have been filed against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (DDC) in Revision No. 2214/1507 (Sita Ram v. Ramjeet and others) and Revision No. 2239/1608 (Jag-dish Prasad v. Sita Ram and others. 3. It has been argued by Sri R.R. Upadhyaya appearing for the petitioners Jaykala and others that against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 9.7.2008, Sita Ram and Jagdish Prasad filed revisions. The petitioner No. 1-Jaykala's husband was impleaded as respondent and notice was issued, but as is evident from the copy of two notices alleged to have been served, it was informed by the villagers of village Mathiya Hamlet, Gram Panchayat Jhabara that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was ill and was hospitalized and none was available at the house to receive notice, therefore, it had been affixed on the main door of the house. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 Late Bhadai died five days before the order passed by the DDC dated 13.10.2008. Since the petitioner No. 1's husband nor the petitioners had knowledge of pendency of the two revisions, they could not appear and place their case before the DDC. 5. It has also been submitted that on the first date of hearing, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and the entries in the revenue records. 6. On behalf of Ram Jeet, the respondent in the revision filed by Sita Ram, Writ Petition No. 706 (Cons.) of 2008 has been filed challenging the same order dated 13.10.2008, saying that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been allotted land, which is far away from the pitch road, whereas the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed a just order in giving all tenure holders their share adjoining to the pitch road. 7. These petitions have been pending since 2008 and 2009 with an interim order, staying the operation of the Revisional Court's order and till date, on the basis thereof, status quo has been maintained between the parties and in the revenue records. 8. 7. These petitions have been pending since 2008 and 2009 with an interim order, staying the operation of the Revisional Court's order and till date, on the basis thereof, status quo has been maintained between the parties and in the revenue records. 8. It is apparent also from the order passed by the DDC challenged in these writ petitions that atleast one of the revisions was filed with delay and although notice was issued, only the arguments made by the revisionists Sita Ram and Jagdish Prasad were noted in the order impugned. The arguments raised by the respondents were not noticed at all. 9. The revision of Sita Ram was allowed, giving him the entire Gata No. 373, which allegedly was his original holding by the DDC without noticing the settled position in law that all tenure holders should ordinarily be given same share in the land adjoining the pitch road as that would be the land which was of considerable commercial value. 10. The order dated 13.10.2008 impugned in both the writ petitions is set aside. The matter is remanded to the DDC to consider afresh after hearing all parties concerned. 11. Since Smt. Jaykala with her sons and daughters had already appeared before this Court, it is expected that she files her objections if any, to the revision within a period of three weeks from today. She shall also file an application for substitution along with a certified copy of the order passed today and the revisional Court shall direct substitution of Jaykala and her sons and daughters in place of Late Bhadai and hear the parties and pass appropriate orders thereafter in accordance with law. 12. Since the matter is old, it is expected that no unnecessary adjournments be given to either of the parties and the case be decided at the earliest, say within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. 13. Till disposal of the revision, status quo be maintained with regard to possession and entries in the revenue records. 14. Both the writ petitions are allowed.