- (1.) HEARD Sri H.M.Srivatava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Sajiwan learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 had no locus to maintain a restoration in revision No.94/104 inasmuch as the respondent no.3 was not at all affected by the passing of the order dated 27.8.2010. Sri Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no power to review the said order and thirdly, the adjustment chart which has now been prepared under orders dated 8.11.2011 seriously prejudices the petitioner without allotting his original holding. Sri Ram Sajiwan learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has invited the attention of the Court to the Khatauni of the basic year produced by him which is taken on record and which indicates that plot nos.3269 and others are the original holding of the respondent no.2. Sri Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly recorded plot no.3271 to be his original plot.
(3.) SRI Ram Sajiwan learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that plot no.3269 was a road side land of which he had been deprived, and that has been clearly mentioned in the restoration application in para 4 copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner manipulated his allotment on the pretext that he has been allotted Bachat land whereas the respondent had filed his revision in relation to plot no.3269 which had been wrongly taken out as Bachat land and which came to be allotted to the petitioner. He therefore submits that the revision of the answering respondent ought to have been heard along with the revision which came to be decided on 27.8.2010. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having failed to consider this , compelled the respondent to file a restoration application.;