R.S.Pathak, J. - (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dismissing his revision application under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the appeal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.)The contention of the petitioner is that he was not impleaded as a party either before the Consolidation Officer, or the Settlement Officer or the Deputy Director and it was not open to the opposite parties to make an order affecting the chak allotted to him without hearing him. Now it appears from the order of the Deputy Director that the petitioner was heard, and that is apparent from the following sentence in the order:-
"The likely affected tenure-holder allottee's of chak Nos. 40 and 11 have been duly heard by me and none of them has any serious objection to make."

(3.)The petitioner has stated in paragraph 8 of the petition that he was not a party in the appeals filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 nor was he given an opportunity to contest those appeals. That is not a denial of what is stated in the aforesaid sentence of the Deputy Director. It was not necessary, in order to hear the petitioner for the purpose of interfering with his chak when granted reliefs to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that the petitioner should be impleaded as a party to the appeals or be given an opportunity to contest the appeals on their merits. It is possible that a chak-holder may not be affected by the questions raised in an appeal on the merits, and it is only at the stage when the appellate authority has decided to grant relief to the appellant that while granting relief such chak-holder may be affected. For the purpose of granting adequate relief to the appellant, the appellate authority may consider it necessary to interfere with the chak of a chak-holder who is not party to the appeal. At this stage the chak-holder, who is likely to be affected, must be given a hearing, even though he is not a party to the appeal nor been given an opportunity to contest the appeal. All that he needs to show is that there is no case for interfering with his chak and that the land may be taken from elsewhere. Inasmuch as the present petitioner was heard before his chak was interfered with, and, according to the Deputy Director he had no serious objection to offer, this contention must fail.