Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.P. Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pundir, who appears for respondents 2 to 5 in the writ petition, who are the contesting respondents. Since all the parties are represented and affidavits have been exchanged, the matter is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 21, 22 and 23, which have been decided by a common order. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was not a party to the revision and without any notice or information, his chak was effected by the impugned order. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by the impugned order, he has been allotted a wholly udaan chak. Lastly, it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner has not been adverted to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order.
(3.) SRI S.K. Pundir on the other hand submitted that although initially the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the revision, but subsequently an impleadment application was filed, whereupon notices were issued. The notice was duly served and thereupon the petitioner had put in appearance and his signature is also available on the order sheet. He, therefore, submits that full opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner and, therefore, the order passed is not an ex parte order and cannot be interfered with on this ground. On merits, he has tried to justify the impugned order and has stated that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the modifications made in his chak. He further states that no averment pointing out any injury suffered by the petitioner has been made in the petition and, therefore, also the writ petition merits dismissal.;