JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Mohan Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.16. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties 2 to 15 stand dispensed with. 2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th March, 2021 passed in revision No. 629/1027 whereby the interim order granted earlier has not been extended. It is submitted that private opposite parties had filed petition under section 9(A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed and against which the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was also dismissed vide order dated 11th February, 2021 which was challenged by the petitioners in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is submitted that initially vide order dated 2nd March, 2021, interim orders were passed in revision staying proceedings pending in terms of Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act. The next date fixed was 6th March, 2021 but the matter was actually heard on 9th March, 2021 but the interim order granted earlier was not extended. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that absolutely no reasons have been recorded for not extending the interim order which even otherwise would have net result of vacating the interim order granted earlier. It is also submitted that once the proceedings under section 9-A of the Act have yet not concluded and revision against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision, there was no occasion for the non extension of the interim order. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the other hand has submitted that a perusal of the impugned order will make it apparent that the matter has been fixed for the next date to be heard on merits and therefore there was no occasion to entertain any application for extension of interim relief particularly since the matter is now ripe for being decided finally. 5. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and material on record and particularly upon perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that earlier at the time of filing of revision, the revisional court had passed an interim order dated 2nd March, 2021 staying the proceedings pending under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act. The next date fixed was 6th March, 2021 on which date the matter could not be heard and was actually thereafter heard on 9th March, 2021 when the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order merely states that the matter is ripe for final hearing and therefore there is no occasion to hear the application for interim relief. 6. It is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all adverted to the fact that earlier at the time of entertaining the revision, an interim order had been passed staying the proceedings pending under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act. It is also apparent that the interim order granted earlier has not been extended merely on the ground that the matter is ripe for final hearing. In the considered opinion of this Court, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have recorded a clear finding as to how continuation of the interim order granted earlier would be detrimental to opposite party particularly when the effect of non extension of interim order would be automatic vacation of interim order granted earlier. Discontinuing an interim order granted earlier can not be merely because it was exparte or that the case is ripe for final hearing. 7. Obviously interim order must have been granted earlier to preserve the nature of disputed property, therefore there should be some cogent reason recorded for vacation or non extension of same. 8. It is also a relevant factor that the proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act were in the nature of execution pertaining to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Once the order passed by the Consolidation officer himself was under challenge before the revisional court and the revisional court was seized of the matter, it was but natural to have stayed the operation of consequential proceedings pending under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act. Once the order passed by the Consolidation officer himself was under challenge before the revisional court and the revisional court was seized of the matter, it was but natural to have stayed the operation of consequential proceedings pending under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all considered the consequences of non extension of interim order granted earlier in the revision. Even otherwise from the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at all applied his mind to the matter pertaining to extension of interim order. 9. Upon applicability of the aforesaid facts in the present circumstances, it is apparent that no cogent reasons whatsoever have been indicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for not extending the interim order granted earlier. As such the order is clearly vitiated. 10. Consequently a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 9th March, 2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 629/1027 (Subhash Singh and others versus Abu Talha and others). A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued extending the benefit of the interim order dated 2nd March, 2021 passed earlier in revisional proceedings till the final decision in the revision. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself.