- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Jagdev Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Asthana appear ing for respondents No. 3 and 4.
(2.) A statement has been made by Sri Ramendra Asthana that he does not pro pose to file counter affidavit. With the con sent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself under the Rules of Court. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer Consoli dation, two revisions were preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, one by the petitioners and another by one Mahesh Prasad who is since dead and repre sented by respondents No. 3 and 4. Specific grievance of the petition ers before the Deputy Director of Consoli dation was that Settlement Officer Consoli dation while deciding the appeal has not only reduced the area by 70 decimal but has also allotted them three chaks. Griev ance of the predecessor-in-interest of con testing respondent Mahesh Prasad was also to the effect that number of his chaks has been increased from three to four and his area has also been reduced. Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation consolidated both the revisions and vide order dated 22. 2. 2008 allowed the revision filed by petitioners and dismissed the revision of Mahesh Prasad.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even though the revision filed by the petitioners has been allowed and the revision of Ma hesh Prasad has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but as a matter of fact his chak has been still wors ened and specific grievance that number of chak has been increased has not at all been adverted to. In reply, learned Counsel appear ing for contesting respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.;