S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Additional Director of Consolidation dated 25.9.1991 by which the restoration application filed by the opposite party was allowed and at the same time amendment in chak was also made.
(2.) On the revision of the list Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned Advocate appeared in support of the writ petition but no body appeared in opposition thereof.
(3.) Proceedings are under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act which is in respect to the allotment of chak to the parties. Against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer making certain adjustment several appeals were filed before the appellate authority. There was one appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 also. Judgment of the appellate authority mentions that compromise was filed in respect to the needed changes between the respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner. Appeal was decided in that light. Even thereafter revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 after about two years, in the year 1978. Appeal was dismissed in default on 20.3.1978. After about twelve years restoration application was filed by the respondent No. 2. As claimed by the petitioner he was not served and he could not get any information. It is also clear from the narration of the fact in the impugned judgment that notices were refused to be accepted and thus it was affixed on the door. Be as it may, the Deputy Director of Consolidation only by mentioning that fact allowed restoration application and at the same time without any discussion on the merits made necessary changes in the chak of the revisionist as claimed by him.;