Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Head learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri S.S. Pandey appearing for contesting respondent No. 2.
(2.) By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 21.2.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation accepting reference.
(3.) Shorn of unnecessary detail, facts relevant for the purposes of the case are that vide order dated 27.10.2002 reference forwarded by subordinate consolidation authorities was accepted by Deputy Director of Consolidation and on the basis of the same demarcation was done and the parties were put in possession accordingly. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 moved restoration application dated 24.7.2003. During the pendency of said application, respondent No. 2 moved application dated 15.2.2006 for correction of map and to allow restoration application filed by respondent No. 3. Vide order dated 21.2.2006 Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the restoration application. By the same order he also made certain changes in the chak of petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court.;