Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
(2.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two folds. Firstly that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed impugned order dated 18.12.2006 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and secondly that hardship of the petitioner has not been considered in the impugned order and only case of the respondent (Revisionist in the revision) was considered while allowing the revision. Necessary averments in this regard have been made in para Nos. 14 to 17 in the writ petition as also para Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the writ petition. From a perusal of the counter affidavit find that there is only denial of the contents of para Nos. 13 to 17 and no materials has been placed to show that the petitioner was served with any notice or that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Being satisfied that the order is ex-parte this writ petition is allowed on the short ground. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.12.2006 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Since this matter relates to allotment of Chak, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may decide the revision expeditiously preferably within two months from the date Of production of certified copy of this order by any of the parties. It is made clear that the parties shall co-operate in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) The writ petition is allowed as above. Petition Allowed.;