JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Pandey learned Standing counsel for the State. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Anoop Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent no.3-caveator. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C), Unnao whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent no.3 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Court of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) to decide the matter afresh on merits after hearing the parties concerned. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the D.D.C has committed an error in allowing the revision preferred by the private respondent no.3 for the reason that the respondent no.3 is neither an aggrieved party and since his predecessor was party to the proceedings and had contested the matter whereafter the order dated 28.03.2018 has been passed on merit. Consequently, the application for recall at the behest of the private respondent no.3 before the S.O.C itself was not maintainable. At best the private respondent could have got the rights which vested with his predecessor-in-interest and he could not claim any fresh rights and, therefore, there was no requirement for him to be heard. In so far as the private respondent no.3 is considered the proceedings were not exparte as his predecessor had already participated and he had executed the sale deed on 12.12.2014 while the proceedings were pending before the Consolidation Officer in teeth of an interim order. It is, thus, submitted that the D.D.C has exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the revision and impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. 4. Sri Anoop Srivastava learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has urged that even though the private respondent had purchased the property from Medi lal on 30.05.2014 yet his rights in the property-in-question had crystalised at that very stage itself. In law, the private respondent being an assignee was legally entitled to get himself impleaded and to contest the proceedings. It is also urged that even otherwise Medi lal died in the year, 2019 and there was none to effectively represent his estate. In law, the private respondent being an assignee was legally entitled to get himself impleaded and to contest the proceedings. It is also urged that even otherwise Medi lal died in the year, 2019 and there was none to effectively represent his estate. It was in the notice of the petitioners that Medi lal had alienated the property and it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have impleaded the private respondent as party but even otherwise if it was not done neverthless the rights would vest in the private respondent and they had to be considered before the order could be passed as it would affect the rights of the private respondents who had purchased the property in the year, 2014. It is also stated that admittedly upon the death of Medi lal in the year 2019 his wife had been substituted and not the son and even otherwise in the said case, substitution was not applicable, as it was not a case of substitution on account of succession, rather it was a case for devolution of interest during the pendency of the proceedings which is in the nature of an assignment which is not covered by Order 22 Rule 4 rather it is covered by Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. In such circumstances, the D.D.C noticing the aforesaid fact has merely set aside the order passed by the S.O.C dated 28.03.2018 which was on merits but exparte and behind the back of the private respondent as well as the order dated 06.12.2022 whereby the application for recall/restoration moved by the private respondent was rejected and this order has been set aside and the parties have been directed to appear before the S.O.C affording the opportunity of hearing to contest the case on merits. In such circumstances, such discretionary order may not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 6. Few facts which are not disputed and are relevant for adjudication of the controversy, are that in the first round of consolidation which came to an end in the year 1964, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Anant and the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent namely Chinna had participated in the consolidation operations. 6. Few facts which are not disputed and are relevant for adjudication of the controversy, are that in the first round of consolidation which came to an end in the year 1964, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Anant and the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent namely Chinna had participated in the consolidation operations. Certain orders were passed regarding their respective holdings, however, as per actual situation prevailing in the first round of consolidation, the same could not be appropriately incorporated in the consolidation records. Neeverthless, it is not disputed that both Anant and Chinna continued to enjoy the holdings together without any formal or proper demarcation. 7. It is during the second consolidation proceedings that the issue again arose, which has given rise to the instant controversy. While the proceedings were pending before Consolidation Officer, Medi lal had already sold the property to the private respondent no.3, that being so the rights of the private respondent as an affected party had already emerged. While the appeal was filed by the petitioners before the S.O.C despite knowing the fact that the property had been sold yet he did not implead the private respondent as party though Medi lal continued to be present during the appellate proceedings and later in the year, 2019 he expired but the fact remains that neither the petitioners nor Medilal informed the authorities regarding the same so that the person who was actually affected i.e. private respondent no.3 could have been made a party. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the S.O.C by means of the order dated 28.03.2018 allowed the appeal of the private respondent and it is in this view when the rights of the private respondents were affected he moved an application for recall on 06.12.2022 which has been rejected by the S.O.C primarily on the ground that since Medi lal was already represented in the appellate proceedings and he was the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent no.3 hence he cannot have a better right than his predecessor and accordingly, it cannot be held that the order was exparte and, thus, recall application came to be rejected. 8. 8. Having noticed the order passed by the S.O.C as well as the D.D.C., this Court finds that in so far as the private respondent no.3 is concerned, upon his purchasing the property in the year, 2014, he was both necessary and proper party to the proceedings as in any case his rights would be affected. Even though Medi lal may not have informed the Court but the fact remains that the petitioners were aware of it and in terms of the Order 22 Rule 10 which may not strictly apply to the proceedings under U.P.C.H Act, 1953 but the principles definitely are applicable and in such circumstances, he ought to have impleaded the private respondent no.3 as a party. Once the matter was decided by the S.O.C ignoring this aspect of the matter and the recall application was filed which was rejected for the aforesaid reason that the private respondent was not an aggrieved party, it does not confer with settled legal principles. The D.D.C noticed the aforesaid fact taking note of the connotation of the word 'aggrieved party' and has allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by the S.O.C on merit as well as rejecting the recall application remitting the parties to contest and get their rights decided on merit is in exercise of jurisdiction by the D.D.C which cannot be faulted. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Since the matter is already pending before the S.O.C., it is expected that he shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. The parties are also directed to cooperate in the proceedings for early hearing. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed of the private respondent which is engaging attention of the appropriate civil court in District Unnao. 10. The parties are also directed to cooperate in the proceedings for early hearing. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed of the private respondent which is engaging attention of the appropriate civil court in District Unnao. 10. Be that as it may, as the said suit is to be decided on its own merits, this Court does not deem it appropriate to make any observation in that regard except that the parties shall make an endeavour to cooperate in the proceedings before the civil court as well who shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible. Costs are made easy. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.