Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B. Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing re spondent No. 1, Sri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6,
(2.) THIS petition has been filed assail ing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2008, passed by the Dep uty Director of Consolidation, Baghpat, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby two revisions filed by the respondents have been allowed and the Chaks of the petitioners and others have been altered. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the Deputy Director of Con solidation is based upon misconception and the basis on which the revisions have been allowed is incorrect. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions on the ground that the land purchased by the petitioners had been left for Bachat and such land left as Bachat was allotted to the re spondents and in lieu thereof the original holdings of the respondents had been allot ted to the petitioners. Apparently if this fact was correct then the petitioners would have not any ground to maintain this petition, inasmuch as the petitioners would be enti tled to land purchased by them and not the original holdings of the respondents by leaving their land for Bachat and getting it allotted to the respondents. 3. Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners along with which is annexed a copy of the sale-deed showing that the petitioners had purchased plot Nos. 2269, 2271 and 2273 from Chakdar respondent No. 93 Ham Singh. Counsel for the petitioners has further taken the Court to the plot numbers reserved as Bachat land, which, is appended to the or der of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 28.8.2004 in which these three plots are not included in the Khata of Bachat. In these circumstances the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners got the and purchased by them reserved as Bachat land and subsequently got it allotted to the respondents and in lieu thereof got the original holdings of the respondents allot ted for themselves is incorrect. The learned Counsel for the respondents has not been ablo to support the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation from the record. 6. In the circumstances indicated above, the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation impugned in this petition has been vitiated as it is based upon incor rect appreciation of facts. Petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3.12.2008 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the two revisions afresh in the light of the observations con tained in the earlier remand order of this Court dated 27.3.2008 passed in Writ Peti tion No. 14713 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 14695 of 2008. 7. Since the matter has already-been remanded once and is being sent herewith again, it would be proper to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the re visions afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The learned Counsel for both the sides have given undertaking that they would co-operate in the hearing of the re visions. Petition Allowed.;