VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) SRI Markandey Upadhyay and Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Advo­cates have filed their Vakalatnama on be­half of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. All the pri­vate respondents are represented. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties this petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission itself under the Ruels of the Court.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is firstly that they were not properly impleaded in the two revi­sions of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 jointly filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The second argument ad­vanced is that the Deputy Director of Con­solidation has allowed the revisions of the respondents without considering the case of the petitioners although they have been adversely affected by the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respon­dents has sought to justify the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and has submitted that in chak allotment disputes this Court may not interfere. It has further been submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given reasons for allow­ing the revisions.;