VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ Petition has been filed against order of Deputy Director of Con­solidation, dated 23rd February, 2008 whereby the revision filed by the respon­dent No. 2 was allowed and in substance the Deputy Director of Consolidation in­creased the valuation of Plot No. 225/1 and 225/2, from 60 paise to 90 paise. The parties to the Writ Petition are co-tenure-holders. Objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer who de­cided the same vide order dated 26.8.2006. Against the same appeal was filed by the respondent No. 2 claiming that out of his two chaks one chak over plot No. 225 be abolished and he may be allotted more land over his other chak at plot No. 48/1 where he has his private source of irriga­tion over his plot No. 48/3. The Settlement Officer Consolidation further recorded that the respondent No. 2 in order to get the relief has submitted that the valuation of plot No. 225 be reduced and his chak may be removed from there to plot No. 48. On these findings the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was allowed. Despite the fact that the appeal of respondent No. 2 has been al­lowed and his two chaks have been re­duced to one he still filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which he claimed that the reduction of the valuation of the plot No. 225 by the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation was improper and it may be restored back to 90 paise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has allowed the revision and has restored the valuation of Plot No. 225 to 90 paise. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the appeal had been allowed on the terms and' conditions as prayed by the respondent No. 2, he could not have filed revision against the order of Settlement Officer Consolida­tion. Further before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in order to get the relief of one chak he conceded that the valuation of plot No. 225 may be reduced and now that he has got one chak over plot No. 48/1, he has taken somersault and now he, is claiming before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the valuation be en­hanced to the disadvantage of the peti­tioner. The respondent No. 2 cannot be al­lowed to claim double advantage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not examined this aspect of the matter in its order that once Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded that it was on the re quest of respondent No. 2 (revisionist be fore the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the valuation of plot No. 225 had beer reduced, he could not have filed revision The respondent No. 2 was estopped from filing the revision and claiming enhance­ment of valuation of plot No. 225. Further in case respondent No. 2 wanted to dispute this fact it was open to him to file an appli­cation before the Settlement Officer Con­solidation that he had never agreed for re­duction of the valuation of plot No. 225. This could be a question of fact and could not have been looked into by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it was only for the Settlement Officer Consolidation who could have examined this aspect. However no such application supported by affidavit was filed by the respondent. He cannot do it now.;