S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.10.2004 by which revision filed by the opposite party has been allowed and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) At the very outset S/Sri Jamal Ali and B.S. Parmar, learned Advocates who appears for all the respondents submit that on the facts and in view of the submission as advanced filing of the counter-affidavit is not required and if the matter is directed to be decided by the Revisional Court within a time bound frame interest of justice may meet and, therefore, writ petition, as requested is being finally decided.
(3.) Proceedings are under section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Claim of the opposite parties was negatived by the Consolidation Officer. The Appellate Court appears to have partly allowed the appeal/claim of the opposite parties. Thus, both parties being aggrieved preferred revision which was decided by the Revisional Court in the manner indicated above.;