ORDER
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has no objection if 41 area of land is given to the contesting respondent No. 2 Rafique in plot No, 174/1 but it is contended that on the land which has been given by allotment to respondent No. 2, house and trees of the petitioner exists and, therefore, some other portion be allotted on road-side to respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 2 be adjusted on Northern side of the said plot. The order of Joint Director of Consolidation is silent in this respect. As the argument has not been referred to in judgment, it is to be presumed that no such argument was raised before Joint Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the point was raised before the Joint Director of Consolidation but it has not been dealt with by him. If it is 30 then proper remedy for petitioner was to approach Joint Director of Consolidation and point out to him that the said point was raised but has not been considered by him. If such an argument was raised and has not been dealt with by Joint Director of Consolidation then there is no fetter on the power of Joint Director of Consolidation to consider it, if approached by petitioner. Normally, a review does not lie against order passed in revision but if the revisional authority omits to consider an argument which was advanced initially at the time of hearing revision then review lies. None can be made to suffer for mistake committed while exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power.
2. For said reason petitioner cannot get any relief from this Court as this court is not going to consider new plea for the first time in this petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Keeping it open for petitioner to file review petition before Joint Director of Consolidation on the ground that the said argument was raised and he did not consider, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
3. Petition dismissed.