JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajkumar Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation the name of the predecessor-in-interests of the petitioners were recorded over the plot in question. Against the basic year entry of the Consolidation operation, an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.CH. Act has been instituted by a third party (Rajkumar) and the entry made in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been expunged by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.07.1999 and the plot in question was ordered to be recorded as banjar land. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.07.1999, a restoration application was filed which has been rejected vide order dated 17.07.2000. Another restoration application filed was rejected vide order dated 10.04.2002. Against the rejection orders of restoration application and against the main order dated 31.07.1999 an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioners, which has been allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.04.2004 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.07.2020, 31.07.1999 and 10.04.2002 as well as directed to record the name of the petitioners over the plot in question. Against the appellate order dated 22.04.2004 a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Land Management Committee and State of the U.P. along with the prayer for condonation of delay. The aforementioned revision filed by the Land Management Committee/ State has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 04.04.2006. The restoration application dated 16.05.2006 and 19.02.2008 filed against the order dated 04.04.2006 has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 04.03.2008. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the records and quash the orders dated 04.03.2008 and 04.04.2006 passed by respondent no. 1. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the records and quash the orders dated 04.03.2008 and 04.04.2006 passed by respondent no. 1. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to not give effect and implement the impugned orders during the pendency of present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. (iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2008 entertained the matter and granted interim protection that no allotment of the land in dispute shall be made by the respondent no. 2/Land Management Committee. In pursuance of the interim order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Court, the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners' was recorded in the revenue record in the basic year of consolidation operation, as such the title objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act cannot be decided without framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has expunged the entry made in the name of predecessor-in- interest of petitioners which cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained under Rules 26 of the U.P.C.H. Rules. He next submitted that appeal under Section 11 (1) U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners was allowed and the petitioner's entry has been again restored, but Deputy Director of Consolidation without affording proper opportunity of hearing to petitioners has set aside, the appellate order and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer, which is illegal. He next submitted that Revisional Court has not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is provided under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, as such the Revisional Order is liable to be set aside and order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, be maintained. 5. He next submitted that Revisional Court has not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is provided under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, as such the Revisional Order is liable to be set aside and order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, be maintained. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and counsel for the Land Management Committee submitted that land in dispute was recorded as 'banjar', as such no right will accrue to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest. They further submitted that the objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act has rightly been allowed by the Consolidation Officer by which the land in dispute has been ordered to be recorded as 'banjar land'. They submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly allowed the revision filed by State/Gaon Sabha, as such no interference is required against impugned orders. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the facts that petitioners' predecessor-in- interest was recorded in the basic year of the Consolidation Operation. There is also no dispute about the facts that in the title objection filed by the third party, the entry made in the name of petitioner's predecessor-in- interests has been expunged. There is also no dispute about the facts that petitioners appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was allowed, but in revision the order of appellate Court has been set aside and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been maintained. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, a perusal of the Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act and Rules 26 of the U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954 will be relevant, which are quoted as under:- " Section 48 [Revision and reference. - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any other [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2)- Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3) (3)- Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). [Explanation. -[(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.] [Explanation (2) . - For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. [Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.] " "Rule 26 [ Section 9 -A].- (1) The cases received from the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be entered in the Misilband register in C.H. Form 6 in the office of the Consolidation Officer. (2) On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections. (3) The notice, which it may become necessary for the Consolidation Officer to issue to any person in connection with the disposal of a dispute by him, shall be in C.H. Form 6-A. (4) Where all the tenure-holders of a joint holdings oppose partition and the Consolidation Officer is satisfied that the opposition of each co-tenure-holder is genuine, he shall not proceed with the partition, unless for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, he considers it necessary so to do in the interest of better consolidation. (5) For deciding dispute relating to the determination of exchange ratio of a plot or the valuation of a tree, well or other improvement existing on a plot, the Consolidation Officer shall make a local inspection of the plot concerned, prepare an inspection memo and place it on the connected file.]" 9. Perusal of Rules 26 of the U.P.C.H. Rules as quoted above fully demonstrates that in the title proceeding issues have to be framed before deciding the dispute under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. In the instant matter without framing issues the petitioner's entry has been expunged. 10. Perusal of Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act also demonstrate that opportunity of hearing is mandatory to the parties before passing adverse order in the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Perusal of the revisional order as well as the order rejecting the restoration application filed by the petitioners demonstrate that petitioners have not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the State/Gaon Sabha. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record, the impugned revisional order dated 04.03.2008 and 04.04.2006 are liable to be set aside and same are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and matter is remitted back before the respondent no. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad to register the aforementioned revision on its original number and decide the same after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and State/Land Management Committee expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. No order as to costs.