Binod Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays to quash the revisional order dated 7.3.1''87 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, Camp Fatehpur in Revision no. 247571235 preferred by Respondent no. 2 Ram Asray against the petitioner and another.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent no. 2 (Ram Asray, who was the Revision Petitioner) and Respondent no. 3 (Rajendra Singh Yadav who was opposite party and Chakdar no. 686) entered into a compromise before the Revisional authority, which was accepted and the Revisonal application was disposed of in terms of compromise, but to the prejudice of the petitioner without considering his case and submis sion and making alterations in the lands allotted in his chak and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Shri Uma Kant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand, contended that the Petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced by the impugned order inas much as only the Chaks allotted to them (Respondent nos. 2 and 3) were altered in terms of the compromise, which was correctly accepted, and thus this writ petition be dismissed. He further sub mitted that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party as the petitioner has not impleaded the other parties whose lands have been allotted in the chak of Petitioner. Ake up the second submission of Shri Uma Kant first. He frankly stated that he cannot name the other persons. Accordingly I regret in not appreciating his argument since he could not tell as to who are the other persons, who were party to the Revision application, it is not possible for me to reject the writ applica tion on this ground.
(3.) A Certified copy of the amended chart of the Revisional authority shows categorically that the lands we're carved out from the lands of the Petitioner and some lands were also allotted to him The Revisional order does not disclose any reason whatsoever for doing so. The Revisional authority was discharging quasi- judicial functions and, thus, it was its duty to disclose reasons so that this Court could know them and for this infirmity the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This writ application, thus;, succeeds and allowed but in part only. The im pugned order is set aside and Revision case no. 2475/1235 Is remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law by Respondent no. 1.;