JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.3.1997, allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 4.
2. The dispute relates to allotment of chaks. The Consolidation Officer carved out chaks of the parties. The petitioner was given chak No. 1574. Respondent No. 3 was given chak No. 1539 and respondent No. 4 was given chak No. 1469. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal allotted three chaks to the petitioner on 21.12.1995. The petitioner filed Revision No. 248 against this order. Against the same order respondent No. 4 filed Revision No. 243. Revision of the petitioner was dismissed on 8.7.1996 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision of respondent No. 4 was decided on 11.3.1997, whereby the revision was allowed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation made certain amendment in the chaks of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition,
3. I have heard Sri K. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 should have disposed of the revision filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 by a common Judgment. The petitioner has not stated that at any stage both the revisions were consolidated. The petitioner had also not filed any application to consolidate these revisions. These two revisions were separately decided. There is no further averment that both the revisions were heard together on a particular date. Respondent No. 1, in these circumstances, could not be blamed that he decided the revisions separately on separate dates. Respondent No. 1 has passed the order on 11th March. 1997 and the petitioner has challenged this order.
5. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that certain plots have been exchanged with respondent No. 3 who had not filed any revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Respondent No. 3 has not filed any writ petition against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner cannot raise any grievance that the area of the chak has been exchanged by the impugned order.
6. The third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer. Consolidation had allotted three chaks to the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out four chaks to the petitioner while on the other hand, the Settlement Officer. Consolidation had carved out two chaks to respondent No. 4 and Deputy Director of Consolidation thought that instead of two chaks, he should be given one chak at one place.
7. A perusal of the impugned order Indicates that respondent No. 1 found that the two chaks of the respondent No. 4 were formed at his original plots but he thought it proper that he may be given chak at one place and while making such arrangement in the carvation of the chaks, the area of the first chak of the petitioner which was bigger one has been reduced and the petitioner has been given the chak approximately at the place where respondent No. 2 had the second chak. In the order, no specific reason has been assigned. Respondent No. 1 cannot apply double standard. For respondent No. 4, he had allotted one chak instead of two chaks but for the petitioner he had allotted four chaks instead of three chaks.
8. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on plot No. 1793 he had a Tubewell and boring. The respondent has denied this fact. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by Rajesh Chandra Pandey. Consolidation Officer. Malpura, Agra, wherein he has stated that in the revenue records, there is no entry of boring or Tubewell. In the rejoinder-affidavit, it has not been denied that in the revenue records, there is no entry regarding any Tubewell or boring on it, it is, however, stated that on the spot, he had installed a Tubewell. The matter should have been examined by making a local inspection. From the order dated 8.7.1996 whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is clear that plot No. 2667, etc. are the original plots of the petitioner. These plots have been excluded from the chak of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11.3.1997.
9. The matter needs re-examination by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He may himself inspect the spot or get it inspected while finally disposing of the revision. As the matter is quite old, he will dispose of the same within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 11.3.1997 is hereby quashed.
11. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.