JUDGMENT M. P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Chak no. 424 belongs to the petitioner. Chak no. 624 belongs to respondent no. 3 & 4. It appears that by the impugned order dated 29-1-85 Dy. Director of Consolidation has made alteration inter se chak no. 424 and 624. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition on the ground that the Dy. Director of Consolidation could not have disturbed his chak without hearing the petitioner. He further states that the respondent no 3 moved an application for impleadment of the petitioner before the Dy. Director of Consolidation but only notice was issued on the same and this application tor impleadment of the petitioner was not finally allowed. There is some controversy on this question of fact. However, this court is not in a position to decide this disputed question of fact whether the petitioner was heard or not and whether he was impleaded as a party in the revision. For this the petitioner should have moved an application before the Dy. Director of Consolidation himself to recall the order dated 29-1-85 on this ground. 3. The petitioner is permitted to move an application before the Dy. Director of Consolidation for recalling the order dated 29-1-1985. In case if the Dy. Director of Consolidation is satisfied that the petitioner was not heard or he was not a party in the revision, then that will be a fit case for recalling the order dated 29-1-1985 and he may decide on merit again after hearing both the parties but not otherwise. 4. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of.