S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.3.2004 by which revision filed by the opposite party Sita Ram has been rejected. Proceedings are under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjustment of chaks. There appears to be no dispute about certain facts. Petitioner is chak holder No. 31 whereas revisionists who are respondents 2 to 4 here are chak holder No. 57. It appears that revision was filed by Sita Ram and others against Shiv Nath who is chak holder No 34. Admittedly petitioner was not party in that revision and no notice was issued/served on her. It appears that while making adjustment, after finding justification in the claim of the revisionists, in the amendment chart and in the operative portion, chak of the petitioner has also been effected.
(2.) Be as it may, so far justification to accept the claim of the petitioner is concerned this Court is not making any comment in that respect but at the same time Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to keep in mind the fact that if petitioner is also to be effected and he was not initially made party, she could have been otherwise made as a party and notices could have been issued to her so that after giving opportunity to the petitioner also necessary adjustment could have been made.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid on this short ground that the petitioner whose chak has been effected by the impugned order, was neither initially made a party nor during course of the argument /adjustment she was made party, the judgment of the Revisional Court needs interference. It will be for the Deputy Director of Consolidation now to make necessary adjustment after hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner who is now being directed to be impleaded as party in the revision.;