Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ranjit Asthana, Advocate appearing for respondents. No. 3, 4 and 5.
(2.) During the chak allotment proceedings, two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, one by petitioners and other by the contesting respondents. Against the orders passed by the Appellate Court, two revisions were filed. The revision filed by the contesting respondents was numbered as Revision No. 284 whereas the revision filed by the petitioners was numbered as Revision No. 797/05-06. The revision filed by the contesting respondents was decided vide order dated 26.6.2006 passed by respondent No. 1, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the dispute between the parties who are co-sharers, was with regard to allotment of chak appropriately, both the revisions ought to have been decided together by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, the revision of the contesting respondents was decided illegally whereas the revision of the petitioners has been left untouched virtually rendering it infructuous.;