JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - Heard counsel for parties. 2. In this case the only point for consideration is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In paragraph no. 19 of the petition it has been stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation made certain inquiries behind the back of the petitioner. This paragraph has been replied in paragraph no. 5. of the counter-affidavit, but the direct (Sic) is not specific and not in so many words. I am accordingly of the opinion that the opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner. Hence it would be proper for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. 3. In view of the discussions made above the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 4. In the result the petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9-4-74 passed in Revision No. 343 is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision afresh. There shall be however no order as to costs.