ORDER R. M. Sahai, J. - In the statement of principles prepared under Section 19 of the Act plot No. 544 was proposed to be allotted to petitioner. As it was his original holding by the road side running from Bhadohi to Varanasi no tenure holder laid any claim to it. An objection was filed by opposite party No. 3 not in respect of this plot but for the facility of a chak road from plots Nos. 542, 547 etc. As this could have been properly done after inspecting the spot the Consolidation Officer made local inspection and made some alterations but that did not satisfy the opposite party who went up in appeal. The petitioner was not impleaded as party presumably because no relief was sought against him. But the appellate authority allowed the appeal and in the garb of providing a chak road to the opposite party deprived the petitioner of his valuable land. 2. The order of the appellate authority is patently illegal and unjust. The law enjoins a duty on every authority deciding a dispute between two parties to pass the order after hearing. Any order passed against a person without impleading him cannot be maintained. The injustice in the order is writ large on the face of it. The petitioner has been deprived of his land and modifications prejudicing his interest have been passed behind his back without his knowledge. From perusal of an extract map of different chaks filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition it is clear that the appellate authority directed the chak road to pass through chak of the petitioner thereby destroying its compactness and further to make it convenient for the opposite party to use the road he allotted one of the portions to the opposite party. In doing so he was no doubt observing the letter of law as the petitioner was being given his original holdings as far as possible; but putting at naught the spirit of consolidation. 3. The learned counsel of opposite party has vehemently argued that petitioner having filed revision in which he was heard the defect if any in the appellate order stood cured. It was urged that the order by the Deputy Director was passed in exercise of powers under Section 48 and the power had been exercised in proceedings arising out of allotment of chaks which did not relate to title. It was urged that the order by the Deputy Director was passed in exercise of powers under Section 48 and the power had been exercised in proceedings arising out of allotment of chaks which did not relate to title. Therefore, this court should refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is true that the petitioner was heard by the Deputy Director, But the order passed by him is summary in nature. A case where petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority the Deputy Director was expected not only to hear him but pass a reasoned order. He held that after local inspection he was satisfied that the order of the appellate authority needed no change. He was exercising revisional jurisdiction, conferring on him power to adjudicate dispute of two tenure holders. It was not an administrative duty that he was discharging. The law required him to support his order by reasons. The ground for non-interference was that the petitioner still retained major portion on the road side. But the reasoning is illusory, the land belonged to the petitioner. He was owner of it. The chak proposed on his original holding was in accordance with principle of consolidation. Even the chak road bifurcating his plot in two was not as prejudicial as removing him from one of the portions. The petitioner has made allegations that the Dy. Director never visited the spot that he misbehaved with him that the order was passed earlier than the date fixed, the transfer application filed before District Magistrate (was) infructuous. As the Deputy Director has not been impleaded in person this aspect cannot be examined. 5. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are quashed. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh after getting the petitioner impleaded as party. The parties shall bear their own costs.