SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) Petitioner is Chak Holder No. 8 and respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are Chak Holder Nos. 247, 528, 99 and 574 respectively. Till the stage of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), the petitioner was allotted Chak No. 8 on Plot No. 3931. Aggrieved by the allotment of chaks as made till the stage of the S.O.C., respondent No. 2 filed Revision No. 130 and one Ram Bharose filed Revision No. 626 before the Joint Director of Consolidation, Meerut, i.e., respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). The aforesaid revisions were consolidated and heard by respondent No. 1 together. Revision No. 130 was filed by respondent No. 2 to relocate the Chak Nali to facilitate irrigation of the plots allotted in his Chak and Revision No. 626 was filed by Ram Bharose on the ground that the revisionist in the aforesaid case had been given a Plot of higher valuation thereby reducing the area of his original holdings. In the aforesaid revisions, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party and it has been stated in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition and paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit that no notices were issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid revisions and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 11.2.1994 allowed the revisions and rearranged the chaks as made till the stage of the S.O.C. and withdrew Plot No. 3931 from the Chak allotted to the petitioner and allotted him a Chak on Plot No. 3930 and 3933. The order dated 11.2.1994 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision Nos. 130 and 626 has been challenged in the present writ petition. ;