JUDGMENT K.N. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for parties and perused that impugned order dated 30th April, 1987 and also the order dated 711987 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively. Appeal was filed by petitioner Habibullah against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer arising out of proceedings relating to allotment of chaks. In this appeal opposite party No. 2 Bachcharam was not impleaded as party. Learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation had allowed this appeal vide order dated 711987 and he had altered the chak of Sri Bachcha Ram and had allotted him a portion of plot No. 522 which originally belonged to opposite party No. 3 Ghurhoo. This portion of the plot is said to be in a form of Khanti and so it has been urged that it should have been kept outside the consolidation scheme. Aggrieved by the order dated 711987 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Opposite party No. 2 preferred revision which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 30th April, 1987. By this order petitioner has now been allotted the said portion of plot of No. 522 measuring 11 biswas, which is said to be in a form of Khanti. Thus the petitioner has now been materially prejudiced. The error which the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had committed in alloting plot No. 522M in the chak of opposite party No. 2 Bachcha Ram, has now been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by allotting the said land in the chak of the Petitioner. This portion of plot No. 522M measuring 11 biswas deserved to be kept out of Consolidation Scheme but instead of doing so, it was first allotted in the chak of opposite party No. 2 Bachcha Ram by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and now by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the chak of the petitioner. If at all it was found desirable to have been taken in the consolidation scheme, then the opposite party No. 3 Ghurhoo who was the original tenureholder of this plot should have been allotted a chak on it. In all fairness this portion of the plot should have been kept outside the consolidation scheme and at any rate the original tenureholder should have been allotted a chak over It. In all fairness this portion of the plot should have been kept outside the consolidation scheme and at any rate the original tenureholder should have been allotted a chak over It. In these circumstances I find that the orders dated 30th April, 1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 721987 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. 2. These orders are accordingly quashed and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is directed to restore the appeal filed by petitioner Habibulla and to decide it on merits afresh after giving notice to all concerned tenureholders according to law and in the light of observations made above. No order as to cost.