Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Singh appearing for respondent No. 3 and Sri P.N. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purposes of the case are as under: Revision filed by the petitioner arising out of chak allotment proceeding was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.2.1998 and chak allotted to him at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer was restored However, by mistake the amendment chart was not prepared. Subsequently, an application was moved by respondent No. 5 to prepare the amendment chart and on the said application a reference was prepared and a report was called for Chakbandi Lekhpal submitted a report dated 8.3.1999 to the Consolidation Officer who forwarded the same to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 14.2.1999. The Settlement Officer Consolidation on 24.2.1999 forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a recommendation to accept the reference. The reference was opposed by respondent No. 6 on the ground that another revision filed by him with regard to his chak has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11.1.1999 and his chak stands confirmed by the said order and as such, no amendment can be made in his chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the reference on the ground that the chak of respondent No. 6 Jaihind stands confirmed vide order dated 11.1.1999 as such no change can be made in his chak. He has further held that since the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.2.1998 was not accompanied by amendment chart as such it is not desirable to implement the said order.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revision filed by respondent No. 6 claiming that the land reserved for 'Harijan Abadi' may be valued and the same may be allotted in his second chak was dismissed. In the said revision the petitioner was not a party and there was no adjudication with regard to his chak. On the other hand, revision filed by the petitioners which was allowed on 10.2.1998 both respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were party and had contested the same. In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 11.1.1999 passed on the revision of respondent No. 6 cannot create any bar on implementation of the order dated 10.2.1998.;