Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ peti tion is of the year 1988. It was admitted vide order dated 26.2.1988 and after issuing notices to the respondents Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. Sri V.P. Sharma, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in the year 1988 itself. However, no counter affidavit has been filed till date although more than 20 years have passed. Further, when the case is taken up in the revised call no one is present on behalf of the respon dents. As such the matter is being heard ex-parte.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.1.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp, Fatehpur whereby he al lowed Revision No. 264 filed by the re spondent No. 3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not take into considera tion the case of the petitioner while allow ing the revision and setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation whereby the- petitioner had been allotted a chak over his original holding being Plot No. 237 which was near his Abadi and also had irrigation facilities. It has further been submitted that the Assistant Consolidation Officer in his proposal had allotted two chaks to the petitioner over Plot No. 161 which was Udan Chak and over Plot No. 486 which was the original holding of the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by the first chak over Plot No. 161 and accord ingly filed objection before the Consolida tion Officer for allotting the chak over his other original holding being Plot No. 237. The Consolidation Officer rejected objec tion of the petitioner. However on appeal the Settlement Officer Consolidation con sidered the claim of the petitioner and after recording a finding that Plot No. 237 was close to the Abadi and also had irrigation facility held that petitioner was entitled to a chak on the said plot. The Settlement Offi cer Consolidation further recorded that Plot No. 237 had been allotted to respondent No. 3 Smt. Brij Rani as Udan chak and that Smt Brij Rani had no right in the said plot. On revision the Deputy Director of Con solidation had altered the chak of the peti tioner by again taking away Plot No. 237 from chak of the petitioner and given it to respondent No. 3, Brij Rani. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had not consid ered the case of the petitioner with regard to the Plot No. 237 being original holding and also close to the Abadi having irriga tion facility. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore; in view of the discussions made above suffers from non application of mind and also stands viti ated on account of the fact that it did not consider the case of the petitioner. The Set tlement Officer Consolidation on the other hand had given sound reason for allotting chak to the petitioner over Plot No. 237.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.1.1988 is hereby quashed and that of the Settlement Con solidation dated 23.12.1986 is maintained. Petition Allowed.;