Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) The recorded area of plot No. 151 is 1.096 hectare. During Partal the area was found to be 0.970 hec- tare and it was accordingly directed to be recorded as such. The petitioner filed objections with regard to the loss of area. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after measurement rejected the daim of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a revision, being Revision No. 1205. In the said revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation called for a fresh measurement report from the Consolidation Officer. Annexure-7 is a report dated 20.9.2006 according to which it has been noted, that plot No. 148/1, area 0.126 hectare has been given a double entry and in case the said infirmity is corrected the area of the petitioner will be completed on the spot. In the report it was recommended that a reference be called for with regard to correction of the area. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 23.11.2006 has dismissed the revision on the ground that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had passed the orders after survey and measurement. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation even though had called for report from the Consolidation Officer which was also submitted on ( n 20.9.2006, which was also in favour of the petitioner but the same has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order and the revision has been dismissed in a cursory manner. According to him if the report is considered the petitioner may have been entitled to some relief.
(3.) Having examined the report dated 20.9.2006 and having period the order impugned in the present writ petition I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not referred to the said report at all. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside. The parties cannot be allowed to lose their area at the whims of the authority and all the more when there was a report dated 20.9.2006 at least what was required from the Deputy Director of Consolidation was to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. It was always open to him to give good reasons for rejecting the said report.;