Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are as under: An objection under section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act (in short 'the Act') for making correction in the map with regard to area of plot No. 1000 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.9.1999. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal on the ground that the order was passed ex-parte and their house etc. are standing on adjoining plot No. 999. The Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer without making spot inspection remanded the case back for fresh decision after making spot inspection and providing opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing the parties. Respondent No. 2 challenged the appellate order by filing a revision. The Revisional Court vide order dated 10.8.2006 allowed the revision and set aside the order of remand passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.
(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation though has stated in the judgment that he has made spot inspection and found that area 0;2-6 of plot No. 1000 was in the nature of 'abadi' and was being used for tying the cattle etc. as such directed the said area be made chak out. He also made adjustment in chak of the petitioners and contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which becomes apparent from the judgment as well as the amendment chart annexed therewith.;