- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The dispute re lates to the allotment of chaks. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the im pugned order, dated 31-8-1991 has made certain adjustments in the chaks of the parties.
(2.) I have heard Sri D. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the contest ing respondents. The question relates as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in making changes in the forma tion of chaks of the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Deputy Director of Con solidation heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties in revision. After hearing the revision he decided to make local inspection and in fact made local inspection but after making the inspection he did not fix any date for hearing the revision and this has prejudiced the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner has not shown that the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed any order that after making local inspection he will hear the revision again. THE local inspection can be made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for two reasons, firstly to verify the facts as existing on the record and secondly, to find out some material on local inspection. In the first case it is not necessary to hear the arguments again in revision. In the second case when he obtains any material afresh and prepares an inspection memo, it will be necessary to hear the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties on the basis of such material obtained by him. It is not denied that at the time of local inspec tion the parties or their Counsel were present. THE petitioner also did not file any application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation after he made the local in spection to give another opportunity of hearing. In such a situation it was not necessary for the Deputy Director of Con solidation to again give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision Ramdeov. D. D. C. , 1980 AWC593, wherein it was held that if the revising authority was not able to decide the revision on material on record, the hearing before local inspec tion was nullified and the petitioner was entitled to fresh hearing on material ob tained after inspection. As in the present case it has not been shown that the revision was decided on the material obtained on inspection, the petitioner was not entitled for hearing after local inspection was made by the Revising Authority.;