Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned Counsel for contesting respondents.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Facts are that petitioner who is chak holder No. 898 was proposed two chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. An objection under section 20(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by the petitioner. Consolidation Officer made certain adjustment in the proposed chaks of the petitioner. Not satisfied with the same, he went up in appeal. Another appeal was filed by one Derab Singh. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 6.9.1995 allowed both the appeals and shifted the chak of the contesting respondents as well as Derab Singh. Thereafter, an application was filed by respondent No. 2 to recall the appellate order on the ground that it was passed ex-parte. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 13.8.1999 allowed the restoration application. However, he vide order dated 2.5.2001 maintained the earlier order dated 6.9.1995 and dismissed the restoration application. Against the appellate order three revisions were filed. One revision was filed by Choke Khan (predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 6) and two revisions were filed by respondent No. 3. Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated all the three revisions and vide order dated 11.11.2002 allowed the same. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions cursorily without recording any reason or discussing the case of the petitioner.;