Khem Karan, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.8.2003 (Annexure-9), passed by opposite arty No.l, in Revision No.2724, Sita Ram and others v. State of U.P., by which he allowed the revision filed by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 and made certain changes, so as to affect the chak of the petitioner.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he and one Hirday Ram Maurya are real, brothers and both of them jointly held plot No. 363 in a way that northern half portion was in his exclusive possession and southern half in possession of his brother. He says that the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the share of Hirday Ram Maurya, vide sale-deed dated 25.8.1998 and came into possession of the portion so purchased. During the course of the consolidation operation, the Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted chak to opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5, giving northern portion of the said plot. Aggrieved of it, he petitioned the Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, but he rejected his request for not giving northern portion of the said plot in the chak of opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. He, therefore, approached the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. The Appellate Court allowed his appeal, vide order dated 21.2.2003 (Annexure-6). The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 filed Revision on 20.8.2003 against the order dated 21.2.2003 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. It is averred in para-14 of the writ petition that the Deputy Director of Consolidation issued notices on the same day fixing 21.8.2003 for appearance. It is conceded in para-14 of the writ petition that this notice was served on the petitioner on 21.8.2003 at 8.00 a.m. and the petitioner reached Faizabad engaged a Counsel and reached the Court of opp. party No.l at 11.00 a.m. It is said in the same para that when his Counsel contacted peshkar of opposite party No.l, he was informed that the case was under judgment. The same was delivered on the same date, at 4.00 p.m. It is this judgment dated 21.8.2003, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that undue haste was shown by Deputy Director of Consolidation in deciding a revision and that too without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his Counsel. He says that the order impugned in this writ petition is ex parte and is against the principles of natural justice. It is also said that the impugned order is also not sound one on merits as it deprives the petitioner of his commercial land, which was earlier in his share by way of private partition and in which his residential house also situated.;