RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.) THE aforesaid writ petition have been filed assailing the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by Param Lal and Mohan Lal. Mr. Alok Kumar states that he has no instructions in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2004 to conduct the case. Even though the case called out in the revised list, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2004 to press the writ petition.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition No. 21712 of 2004 is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, is called. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 47477 of 2004 states that the petitioner was allotted chak on his original holding by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.2.2003. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2/Bhujbal filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was rejected vide order dated 23.4.2003 and confirmed the chak of the petitioner allotted to him at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 as also the aggrieved persons filed a revision before the Revisional Authority., who in turn, vide order dated 7.1.2004 disturbed the chak of the petitioner and chak No. 49 was allotted to the respondent No.3, whereas chak No. 11 was allotted to the petitioner which is far away from the original holding of the petitioner.
(3.) HE further submits that on initiation of consolidation proceedings, plot No. 49 situated in village and Mauja Khorakha has no concern with the contesting respondent No.3, but against the demand of respondent No.2 the original holding of the petitioner was given to him, which will be clear from the memo of revision filed by the contesting respondent No.2. As mentioned above, Bhujbal/respondent No.2 never demanded the original holding of the petitioner, but against the demand as well as against the documents on record, the original holding of the petitioner was given to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, thus, the impugned order does not sustainable in the eyes of law.;