JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute relates to plots situate in village Jasaura, pargana Sarawav district Meerut. The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted a chak by the Consolidation officer. The respondents 2 to 10 did not file any objections against the allotment of the chak in favour of the petitioner. His further allegation is that he was not made a party to any appeal in which his chak was involved. For the first time he was made a party in a revision No. 2531 of 1977 filed by Maqsood in the Court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut. His further case is that he did not have the knowledge of the revision at all and for the first time on 5-2-1979 he came to know this fact that an order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation against him affecting his chak. On 5th February, 1979, immediately as he came to know this fact, that a revisional order has been passed against him, he made an application on 8th February, 1979 for setting aside the order dated 29th December 1978 passed by the revisional court. This application was supported by an affidavit. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the application for setting aside the order dated 29-12-1978 on 9-3-1979. 2. The petitioner has, now, challenged the orders dated 29-12-1973 and 9-3-1979 by means of the present petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order dated 9-3-1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 29-12-1978, is wholly an invalid order as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the order does not contain any reason as to why his application has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, denied the allegations made by the petitioner, namely, that he was not a party in the appeal or he was not served with the summons in the revisional court. I have perused the order dated 9-3-1979. The order dated 9-3-1979 is as follows : - "Cases have already been decided. No stage for recalling the file and rehearing. Hence rejected." 5. I have perused the order dated 9-3-1979. The order dated 9-3-1979 is as follows : - "Cases have already been decided. No stage for recalling the file and rehearing. Hence rejected." 5. It is clear from this order that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that an application for setting aside the order dated 29th December, 1978 is not maintainable and hence he did not apply his mind to the facts of the case at all. This approach of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly erroneous. The application for setting aside the ex parte order was maintainable and it was necessary for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have considered the application for setting aside the order dated 29th December, 1978 on merits after considering the various contentions raised by the parties. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well - founded. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 9-3-1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and the case is remanded to it for deciding the application for setting aside the ex- parte order dared 29th December, 1978 afresh in accordance with law after considering the various contentions raised by the parties. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.