was passed, respondent no. 1 could not have proceeded to hear Revision No. 3 and consequently pass an order in the said case affecting the chak of Ved Raj and consequently the petitioners. In case, any order permitting respondent no. 2 to implead Ved Raj as a respondent in Revision No. 3 was passed by respondent no. 1 and Ved Raj was consequently impleaded as respondent in the aforesaid case, it was incumbent upon respondent no. 2 to substitute the heirs of Ved Raj i.e. the petitioners in place of the aforesaid Ved Raj. On failure of respondent no. 2 to substitute the petitioners in place of Ved Raj, Revision No. 3 had abated against the petitioners in view of the law laid down in judgment of this Court reported in Gajjoo vs Deputy Director of Consolidation & Anr. 1995 RD (231) . Consequently, the proceedings before respondent no. 1 affecting the chak of the petitioners would be null and void. Further, the petitioners could not have argued their case before respondent no. 1 unless they were impleaded as respondents in Revision No. 3 or substituted in place of already existing respondents and any appearance by either of the petitioners before respondent no. 1 has no legal significance and not relevant for adjudication of the present writ petition. The appropriate course for respondent no. 1 was to direct respondent no. 2 to either implead or substitute the petitioners in Revision No. 3 and after the said impleadment or substitution, as the case may be, respondent no. 1 could have proceeded to hear the case and pass orders affecting the chak allotted to the petitioners. As no such steps were taken either by respondent no. 1 or respondent no. 2 , the order dated 26.6.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 is illegal. Further, the mere fact that through his impugned order dated 26.2.2002, respondent no. 2 has allotted chak to the petitioners/Ved Raj allegedly on the original holdings of Ved Raj and the chaks allotted to Ved Raj previous to the aforesaid order were Uran Chak is not relevant and did not absolve respondent no. 1 from following the procedure prescribed in law and did not empower him to pass order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the concerned chak holder. It is also pertinent to note that in his impugned order dated 26.2.2002, respondent no. 1 has not considered the effect of alteration of chak on petitioners or Ved Raj. The aforesaid clearly shows that the order dated 26.2.2002 was passed by respondent no. 2 without any application of mind on his part. It is evident that the order dated 26.2.2002 has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without following the procedure prescribed in law and is contrary to law.
