MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2; Sri Mahesh Narain Singh for the respondent No. 3; and Sri Sushil Kumar Pal for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) A perusal of the record would reveal that by order dated 07.04.2016, passed on a restoration application, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had recalled his earlier order dated 24.01.2009 and had restored Appeal Nos. 163 and 176 for rehearing. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, three separate revisions were filed by each of the three petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 12.04.2017 on the basis of alleged consent of the parties assumed jurisdiction to alter the chak of the parties, and thereby altered the chaks, even though the revision before him was only against the restoration order. The fourth respondent challenged the order dated 12th April, 2017 in Writ-B No. 22743 of 2017 on the ground that the factum of consent recorded in the order dated 12th April, 2017 was incorrect and that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the revision was preferred only against the restoration order.
(3.) The aforesaid Writ-B No. 22743 of 2017 was dismissed as withdrawn under order dated 23.05.2017 with liberty to the petitioner (fourth respondent) to file an appropriate application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of his grievance raised before the writ court.;