Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Tiwari for respondents. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation, Baghpat in Revision Nos.123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129 filed by private respondents and order dated 30.12.2009 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation, Baghpat in Revision nos. 164 (Meghnath v. Suman & others) and 165 : (Meghnath v. Gangasaran & others) filed by petitioner. By the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation the revisions filed by respondents Arjan, Surjan, Devendra, Harishchandra, Ravindra referred above, have been allowed, which were filed against the petitioner, whereas revisions filed by petitioner have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.12.2009 on the ground that necessary adjustments have already been made in the chak of petitioner on the basis of impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed in the revisions of respondents, but from the perusal of said order there is nothing to indicate that the case of petitioner has anywhere been discussed by Joint Director of Consolidation while allowing the revisions filed by respondents. However, from the perusal of another order dated 30.12.2009 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation in Revision nos.164 (Meghnath v. Suman & others) and 165 (Meghnath v. Gangasaran & others) it appears that the petitioner's revisions have been rejected merely on the ground that the necessary adjustment had been made in petitioner's chak vide order dated 16.12.2009 by Joint Director of Consolidation.
(2.) Thus, from the perusal of both the impugned orders passed by Joint Director of Consolidation, there is nothing to indicate that the case of petitioner has anywhere been considered by Joint Director of Consolidation. The Joint Director of Consolidation ought to have decided the revisions filed by the petitioner and respondents jointly by dealing with the cases of the respective parties but that has not been done.
(3.) It is no doubt true that while deciding the revision Nos.123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129 filed by respondents, the Joint Director of Consolidation has considered the grievances of respondents and has redressed the same by impugned order but while redressing the grievances of respondents, it was also necessary for the Joint Director of Consolidation to consider the grievance and case of petitioner simultaneously. It was not proper for Joint Director of Consolidation to dismiss the revisions of petitioner on the ground that the necessary adjustment has been made by her in revisions already filed by respondents referred above without discussing the case of petitioner. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the orders passed by Joint Director of Consolidation are hereby quashed.;