JUDGMENT O.P. Trivedi, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Subedar Singh, Lalloo Singh and Gajraj Singh and it is contested by Paras Ram Singh, opposite party No. 3. The petitioner's case is that there was a proposal for Chaks in their favour at the A.C.O. stage with which they were dissatisfied and, therefore, filed an objection against the proposed Chaks before the Consolidation Officer, who allowed the objection and made certain adjustments in their Chaks by an order of which Annexure 3 of writ petition is a copy. An appeal was filed by opposite party No. 3 against this order but the same was dismissed and therefore Paras Ram Singh filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who upset the order of the Consolidation Officer and restored the Chaks which were originally proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Hargur Charan Srivastava and Sri Umesh Chandra Srivastava, appearing for the opposite party. It may be mentioned that the Deputy Director had made an observation in the impugned order, of which Annexure 5 of the writ petition is a copy, that the petitioners had not filed any objection against the Chaks originally proposed at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The only ground on which the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is challenged is that he erred in the observation that no objection had been filed for the petitioners against the Chak proposed at the A.C.O. stage. There appears to be some substance in this connection because the petitioners have filed Annexure 1 which purports to be copy of an objection at the instance of the petitioners against the Chaks proposed in their names at the A.C.O stage. In the counter affidavit the opposite party did not in an unqualified manner disclose that this objection was never filed by the petitioners. On the other hand he merely pleads ignorance about this objection. That being so there appears to be an apparent error on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in ignoring Annexure 1 and in the observation that the petitioners never filed an objection against the Chaks proposed at the A.C.O. stage. 2. On the other hand he merely pleads ignorance about this objection. That being so there appears to be an apparent error on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in ignoring Annexure 1 and in the observation that the petitioners never filed an objection against the Chaks proposed at the A.C.O. stage. 2. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, of which Annexure 5 of the writ petition is a cony, dated March 17, 1969 and remand the case to the Deputy Director to decide the revision of Paras Ram Singh, opposite party No. 3 afresh after taking into consideration the original of Annexure 1 filed in this cage. There shall be no order as to costs.