JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 12-12-1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by Respondent No. 4 Jumrati under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). The counter affidavit has also been filed and the contesting respondents are represented. It is convenient with the consent of parties to dispose of the petition on merits. 2. In proceedings under Section 20 of the Act objections were filed and the same were decided against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and against the said order respondent No. 2 preferred a revision which was allowed by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the revision has been allowed without considering the inconvenience or grievances of the petitioners when there is no mention about the case of the petitioners who were opposite parties in the revision in the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 Hafizullah, on the other hand urged, that the impugned order was correct and just and he placed reliance on Annexure 2' to the counter affidavit which indicates that his house in plot no. 157 opens to the east and north and this was the reason why the revision was allowed in favour of Respondent No. 2. He further placed reliance on Parahu and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others, (1964 ALJ 240). 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not without substance. A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Joint Director of Consolidation, Deoria, has not applied his mind to the inconvenience and grievances of the petitioners who were the opposite parties in the revision. The impugned order is cryptic. Only the case of Respondent No. 2 who has filed the revision has been discussed and abruptly the Respondent No. 1, came to the conclusion that his grievances were justified. He did not even make reference to the inconvenience or grievances of the petitioners who were opposite parties in the revision. Respondent No. 1 was the last court of facts. Only the case of Respondent No. 2 who has filed the revision has been discussed and abruptly the Respondent No. 1, came to the conclusion that his grievances were justified. He did not even make reference to the inconvenience or grievances of the petitioners who were opposite parties in the revision. Respondent No. 1 was the last court of facts. He should apply his mind to the grievances and inconveniences of both the parties as envisaged by Section 19 of the Act. Without applying his mind to the grievances of the petitioners and without mentioning the same it could not be assumed that he has done justice to the case of the parties. Further no reasons have been given as to why the revision was being allowed. 6. As a matter of fact inconvenience and hardship of both the parties must hive been considered and the revisional court must have applied his mind to the respective cate of the parties. Parahu and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, was a case where it was held that in case substantial justice has been done by the impugned order, no interference could be made in writ jurisdiction of this Court. But in the instant case from the perusal of the impugned order it is crystal clear that no substantial justice has been done, rather without considering the grievances and inconvenience of the petitioners revision has been allowed in favour of respondent no. 2, without assigning any reasons. The impugned order cannot, accordingly, be sustained. In the ends of justice I am of the view that spot inspection would be necessary in this case. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 12-12-1984 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revision afresh after making spot inspection and after considering the inconvenience and the grievances of both the sides. Under the circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.