- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 3,4,5, 7,9 and 10, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1 and Sri. V. K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17th January, 1998 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 being Revision No. 136 was allowed based upon compromise alleged to have been field by the parties. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though on the basis of such compromise her chak has been altered but in fact she was not party to the said compromise nor she has given consent to the said compromise. A copy of the compromise deed has also been field along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. From the perusal of the same it appears that petitioner had not put her signature in compromise deed. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also not been able to dispute this fact. In view of the above, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision No. 136 filed by Ram Chandra/respondent No. 3 on the basis of the compromise altering chak of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 17th January, 2008 in so far as it allowed the revision No. 136 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for reconsideration of the Revision No. 136 filed by respondent No. 3 on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. Since this is matter arising of chak allotment it would be appropriate that revision may be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that all the parties shall co-operative in the hearing of the revision.
(3.) WRIT petition stands allowed as above. Petition Allowed. .;