JUDGMENT : [Dinesh Pathak, J.] 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the state authorities and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the case finally at admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties present, without calling for the respective affidavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit). 3. Both the writ petitions, as above, have been filed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer with respect to the same plot in question which is the subject matter of original proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. To avoid repetition of facts and the provisions of law, this Court deems it appropriate to decide both the writ petitions simultaneously by the common order of the date. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3673 of 2022 shall be the leading file. 5. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that property in question basically belongs to Lal Singh, son of Kadhera Singh. One Dalveer Singh, husband of the petitioner, is claiming his right and title over the property of Lal Singh on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 17.10.1982 said to have been bequeathed by the testator Lal Singh. Vide order dated 31.08.1985, land in question was ordered to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Having been aggrieved against the said order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Dalveer Singh has filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 30.12.1996, remitting the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh. 6. In pursuance of the remand order dated 30.12.1996, Consolidation Officer has passed fresh order dated 22.07.1997 (Annexure No. 2) directing to record the name of Dalveer Singh in place of Lal Singh. Having been aggrieved against the order dated 22.07.1997, a restoration application has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha through private counsel. Ultimately, said restoration application was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure No. 5). Consequently, order dated 22.07.1997 was quashed and the case is restored to its original number. Consolidation Officer has fixed date for hearing of the matter. 7. Ultimately, said restoration application was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure No. 5). Consequently, order dated 22.07.1997 was quashed and the case is restored to its original number. Consolidation Officer has fixed date for hearing of the matter. 7. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.07.2000, has dismissed the revision being revision No. 164 of 2017 (Computer Case No. 2017531802000036), vide order dated 04.11.2022, and decided the entire case on merits. 8. It is apposite to mention that, during this period, Gaon Sabha has filed a revision being revision No. 165 of 2017 (Computer Case No. 2017531802000035) assailing the order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Aforesaid revision was filed time barred on 20.12.2000 against the order dated 30.12.1996. Said revision was allowed by the separate order dated 04.11.2022 quashing the previous order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 9. In this backdrop of the matter, petitioner has filed two writ petitions assailing the two separate orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as mentioned above. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very limited question in the captioned writ petitions qua jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter on merits. It is submitted that once the restoration application dated 06.01.1998, filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, was allowed by the order dated 12.07.2000, there was no existence of the previous order dated 22.07.1997 which was recalled by the order dated 12.07.2000 and the case was restored to its original number. Revision assailing the order dated 12.07.2000 was filed for the limited purpose only to examine the correctness and validity of the order dated 12.07.2000 which was passed on the restoration application. Therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation has inherent lack of jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the original case which was still sub-judice before the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot travel beyond the scope of the restoration application and he, utmost, could examine the merits of the restoration application. It is further submitted that no proper and effective opportunity of hearing have been afforded to the petitioner to defend his case on merits before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. So far as another order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision no. It is further submitted that no proper and effective opportunity of hearing have been afforded to the petitioner to defend his case on merits before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. So far as another order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision no. 165 of 2017 is concerned, it is submitted that once the order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been implemented in letters and spirit and in pursuance thereof, fresh order dated 22.07.1997 was passed, therefore, order dated 30.12.1997 cannot be treated to be in existence for the purpose of challenging the same. Therefore, the revision filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha against the order dated 30.12.1997 itself was not maintainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, on the date of filing of the revision dated 20.12.2000, the assailed order dated 30.12.1997 cannot be treated to be in existence for the purposes of filing the revision petition before the superior court. 12. I found substance in the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was already executed/implemented and, in pursuance thereof, order dated 22.07.1997 was passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Even thereafter, Gaon Sabha has filed the restoration application on 06.01.1998 against the order dated 22.07.1997 which was also allowed by order dated 12.07.2000. In this view of the matter, once the remedy of filing restoration application has been availed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, allowing the order dated 30.12.1996 to stand, it has got no locus to challenge the said order dated 30.12.1996 at a belated stage on 20.12.2000. Availing the subsequent remedy of filing a revision against the order dated 30.12.1996, which has already been executed/implemented, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the other hand, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in deciding the revision No. 164 of 2017, has exceeded its jurisdiction so vested in it by law in adjudicating the right and title of the parties over the property in question, whereas revision was filed only to challenge the order dated 12.07.2000 which was passed in restoration application, therefore, merits of the restoration application was to be examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Original matter relating to right and title of the parties was still sub-judice before the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the restoration order dated 12.07.2000. 13. In this conspectus as above, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided both the revision in zeal by entering into the merits of the case without considering the fact that after order dated 22.07.1997 passed in the original case and order dated 12.07.2000 passed on the restoration application, he has got no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the original case and adjudicate upon the right and title of the parties over the property in question. Order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in both the revisions, which are challenged by separate writ petitions, seriously prejudice the right, title and interest of the petitioner, therefore, both the orders are liable to be quashed. Opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to defend his case before the Consolidation Officer before whom the matter is pending, in the eyes of law, in pursuance of the order dated 12.07.2000 passed on the restoration application. 14. As such, both the writ petitions succeeds and are allowed. 15. Order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 164 of 2017 and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 165 of 2017 are hereby quashed. Parties are relegated before the Consolidation Officer, before whom the matter is still pending, in the eyes of law, in pursuance of the order dated 12.07.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the restoration application, to get the matter decided on merits. 16. It is made clear that both the parties are at liberty to raise all the possible plea and objection before the court concerned in favour of their respective cases and file the evidence, if any, in support thereof. 17. Concerned Consolidation Officer is hereby directed to consider and decide the case in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of his order. However, both the parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer concerned on 30.01.2023. 18. Concerned Consolidation Officer is hereby directed to consider and decide the case in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of his order. However, both the parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer concerned on 30.01.2023. 18. Before parting, counsel for the petitioner has prayed to protect the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the property in question who is in possession thereof, inasmuch as, local authorities are trying to dispossess her therefrom. 19. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession over the property in question for a period of seven months or till the decision of the Consolidation Officer in the case, whichever is earlier.