JUDGMENT : (Dinesh Pathak, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has inadvertently mentioned the date of order as 18.01.2001 in place of 08.01.2001 in his order dated 04.12.2021. In fact, the earlier order passed on the restoration application is dated 08.01.2001. 3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the writ petition finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties, without calling for respective affidavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit) and without putting notice to the remaining respondent nos. 5 to 11 with liberty to them to move a recall application, in case any fact and details, as mentioned in the present writ petition, are found to be incorrect. 4. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.12.2021 (Annexure No. 13), 18.06.1993 (Annexure No. 8), 27.02.1993 (Annexure No. 6), 11.12.1991 (Annexure No. 4) and 08.07.1982 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh and Consolidation Officer, Tahbarpur, Azamgarh respectively. 5. A very short question involved in this petition is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation can examine the legality and validity of the order dated 08.01.2021, which was not the subject matter for consideration before him. 6. Record reveals that the revision filed on behalf of the present petitioners was finally dismissed vide order dated 27.02.1993. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the order of dismissal, present petitioners have moved a restoration application dated 04.03.1993, which was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its order dated 18.06.1993. Having aggrieved against the order dated 18.06.1993, which was passed behind the back of the petitioners, they moved a restoration application dated 25.06.1993. Aforesaid restoration application was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 08.01.2001. Having aggrieved against the order dated 18.06.1993, which was passed behind the back of the petitioners, they moved a restoration application dated 25.06.1993. Aforesaid restoration application was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 08.01.2001. Consequently, the earlier order dated 18.06.1993 passed on the restoration application as well as the order dated 27.02.1993 passed on the revision were quashed and the revision was restored to its original number. While deciding the revision, in pursuance of the order dated 08.01.2001, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its impugned order dated 04.12.2021, has illegally entered into merits of the restoration application dated 25.06.1993, which was already decided vide order dated 08.01.2001, and quashed the order dated 08.01.2001. Consequently, the order dated 27.02.1993, which was passed in revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, was allowed to stand. 8. Record reveals that the order dated 08.01.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the restoration application was never assailed before any competent court by any party and the same became final between the parties. In this eventuality, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally examined the legality and validity of the order dated 08.01.2001 and illegally quashed the same. 9. In pursuance of the order dated 08.01.2001, revision was restored to its original number, by recalling the order dated 27.02.1993, and the merits of the original case, which was put forwarded through revision on behalf of the petitioners, was subjudice before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, thereafter, he utmost can decide the merit of the revision rather than the restoration application which was not subjudice before him. 10. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally exercised its jurisdiction in deciding the revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and suffers infirmity which is liable to be quashed. 11. As such, instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby restored to its original number. 12. Both the parties are relegated before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the revision decided on merits. 11. As such, instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby restored to its original number. 12. Both the parties are relegated before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the revision decided on merits. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision by reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournment, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that in case any stay application is pending along with the memo of revision, the same shall be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.