S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.11.2002 by which revision filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed and the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.11.2002 by which objection filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) Pleadings between the parties are complete, as insisted by learned Counsel for the parties, matter is being finally heard and decided.
(3.) In proceeding under section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act, it appears that appellate authority by its order dated 11.4.1990 in the light of compromise which is said to have been filed before him valued plot No. 134 and allotted the same in the chak of petitioner, respondent No. 2 and one Beni Madhav. It is said that after about seven year, a revision was filed by respondent No. 2 in which petitioner was not made party and by allowing revision, plot No. 134 was made chak out. Submission is that in view of appellate order, as the petitioner was given a portion of plot No. 134 and thus, he being beneficiary of the order of appellate authority, in the revision, he was necessary party and thus, impugned order of the Revisional Court being without any notice and opportunity is liable to be quashed.;