Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) The heirs of respondent no.4 namely respondent no.4/1, 4/2, 4/3 and 4/4 are represented by his counsel.
(2.) By impugned order dated 24.12.2009 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision no.327 filed by Mahboob Ahmad and revision no.329 filed by Margoog Ahmad has been dismissed. But ultimately the petitioners' chak have been disturbed which remained intact at the level of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while filing appeal and objections, petitioners were not impleaded and made necessary party in the aforesaid proceedings. Abruptly all of a sudden revision was filed by the aforesaid persons against the petitioners by impleading them as necessary party in the proceeding, as such at the revisional stage, petitioners' chaks allotted to their original holding over plot nos. 647, 648 and 653 would not have been disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) Contrary to it, learned counsel appearing for respondents has pointed out that their original plot no.643 and 648 were also adjoining to the road but no chak was allotted to the respondents on road side over the original holding of respondents by the Consolidation authorities, therefore, chak allotted by Deputy Director of Consolidation while including the aforesaid plot in their chak cannot be faulted with.;