JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - After finalisation of consolidation scheme in 1965 and delivery of possession in 1966 an application was filed by opposite parties in 1968 for making alterations in the Chak on allegation that plot No. 324/1 which was original holding of opposite parties had been allotted the petitioner had valuation of 13 anna but it was incorrectly shown as 3 annas. Consequently land allotted to opposite parties was lesser than that it should have been. On this a reference was made by consolidation officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation alter hearing parties passed an order that as aggrieved party was satisfied that there was an error there was no harm in correcting the same. He directed revenue records to be corrected consequently (land) of petitioner was reduced. Against this order petitioner filed restoration application alleging that order has been passed behind his back. On this application the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that there was no reason to recall the order as parties concerned were heard and Shanker Dayal who is impleaded as opposite party No. 7 being petitioners co-chak-holder having heard it was not necessary to hear petitioner. It may be mentioned that opposite parties had not filed any counter affidavit before the Deputy Director to the restoration application. In other words the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepted the affidavit of the petitioner that the order was passed without hearing but decided as a matter of law that one of the co-chak holder having been heard it was not necessary to hear the other chak-holder. In doing so he committed an error of law. While deciding revision under Section 48 of the Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation is required to pass an order after affording reasonable opportunity for hearing to party concerned. This was interpreted by Division Bench and hearing of one brother was not found sufficient. Deputy Director of Consolidation should decide revision after hearing both parties. Hearing of one chak-holder was not sufficient. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be maintained. 2. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated September 18, 1971 and July 17, 1970 so far they relate to petitioner are quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall now hear the reference afresh and decide after hearing both the parties. Parties shall bear their own costs.