Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are brothers. Amongst other plots, Plot Nos. 1951, 1959, 1957 and 1682 were the original holding of petitioners and respondent No. 2. During the consolidation proceedings held in the Village, petitioner No. 1 was allotted Chak on Plot Nos. 1951 and 1959 while respondent No. 2 was allotted Chak on Plot Nos. 1721 and 1682. Petitioner No. 2 was also allotted Chak on Plot Nos. 1951 and 1957. It is evident that all the brothers were allotted Chaks on their original holdings. 2. Dissatisfied with the arrangement made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.'), petitioners filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 1.1.2000. The demand of petitioner No. 1 was for allotment of a Chak on Plot No. 1682 on the ground that it was Do-fasli. Against the order dated 1.1.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') which was numbered as Appeal No. 1375. The S.O.C. vide order dated 26.6.2001 allowed the aforesaid appeal and altered the arrangement of Chaks allotting a Chak to petitioner No. 1 on Plot No. 1682 by withdrawing the same from respondent No. 2. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a recall application before the S.O.C. praying for recall of the order dated 26.6.2001 alleging that the same was passed without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The said recall application was dismissed by the S.O.C. vide judgement and order dated 31.1.2008. The respondent No. 2 filed another recall application alleging the same facts, but the said recall application was also dismissed by the S.O.C. vide order dated 25.9.2009. Consequently, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was numbered as Revision No. 873/2009 challenging the orders dated 25.9.2009, 31.1.2008 and 26.6.2001.
(3.) A perusal of the memorandum of Revision shows that in his Revision, respondent No. 2 had merely stated his grievance regarding proceedings before the S.O.C. culminating in the different orders passed by him and did not raise any grievance regarding the fact that certain plots especially Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 which were the original holdings of petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and were initially chucked out from the consolidation scheme should be included in the consolidation scheme as well as any grievance regarding allotment of four Chaks at the stage of S.O.C. It appears from the records and order of respondent No. 1 that till the stage of S.O.C., respondent No. 2 was allotted four Chaks. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 26.3.2010 allowed Revision No. 873/2009 instituted by respondent No. 2 and consequently set aside the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the S.O.C. withdrawing the Chak allotted to petitioner No. 1 on Plot No. 1682 and allotted the same to respondent No. 2 and through the same order respondent No. 1 also included Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 in consolidation scheme and also determined their valuation. A perusal of the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 shows that the aforesaid order has ostensibly been passed by respondent No. 1 after a spot inspection wherein he found standing crops on Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978. The order dated 26.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.;