Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 30th march 1990 passed by the respondent No.3 and as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application as also the order dated 1-10-1991 passed by the respondent No.3 and as contained in Annexure-2 thereto. 2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. A consolidation proceeding was initiated in village Manjhaulia. According to the petitioners in the said consolidation proceeding Chak No.12/3 measuring an area of 1,88 acres was allotted to them as out of the said Chak, the petitioners were owner of 99 decimals of land whereas respondent No 5 owner of only 13 decimals of land. Similarly Chak No.95/2 measuring area of 1.23 acres was notified in the name the petitioner No.4, as out of the said land be had 65 decimals of land whereas five decimals of land belonged to respondent No.5. Chak No.272/5 measuring an area of 1.07 acres land was allotted in the name of Manjhaulia Singh, Renrup Singh, Doreu Singh and rajaram Singh Chak, No.5/6 measuring an area of 1 67 acres was allotted to yogendra Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and Sudarshan Singh, chak No.180/2 measuring an area of 53 decimals was allotted to respondent no.5. 3. The respondent No.5 filed an objection before the Consolidation officer with regard to allotment of the aforementioned Chake resulting in initiation of a proceeding being Case No.31/89. The respondent No.5 claimed that he had 35 decimals of lands which had wrongly been included in 3 chaks, namely 13 decimals in Chak No.12/3,5 decimal in chak No 95/ 2, and 17 decimals in Chak No.272/5, which was allotted to Ram Sarup singh and others. 4. The said objection petition of the respondent No.5, was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. 5. An appeal against the said order was preferred by the respondent no.5. However before the Consolidation Officer, the aforementioned Ram sarup Singh and others were not impleaded as parties. The respondent No.3, however allowed the said appes and directed that the lands of the respondent No.5 from the aforementioned these chak as also Chak No.9/6 be earbed out and the same be notified is the name of respondent No.5. He further directed that the respondent therein petitioner in this writ application) be compensated from Chak No.180 which was notified in the name of Baiju Yadav. 6. He further directed that the respondent therein petitioner in this writ application) be compensated from Chak No.180 which was notified in the name of Baiju Yadav. 6. The petitioners preferred a revision application which was registered as Revision case No.788/90. The respondent No 5 also preferred a revision application before the respondent No.2 which was also registered as revision Case 490/90. One Sukar Yadav also filed a revision petition which was registered revision case No.438/90. 7. By reason of the impugned order dated 4-10-1991 as contained in annexure-2 to the writ application all the aforementioned three revision application have been disposed of. 8. The petitioners in paragraph 18 of the writ application stated as follows : "that at this place, it is relevant to point out that in compliance of the order passed by the respondent No.3 new chake were prepared, chak No.820 was prepared in place of chak No.12/3, chak No 828 was prepared in chak No.95/2, Chak No.822 was prepared in place of chak No.372/5. Further in view of the aforesaid order insteadof chak No.180/2 having an area of 93 decimals which had originally been notified in the name of respondent no.5, two new chaks, namely, Chak No.1648 having an area of 35 decimals and chak No.814 having an area of 58 decimals were notified in the name of respondent No.5. " 9. The petitioners have contended that the Joint director of Consolidation amalagmated chak No.814 and 802 with Chak No 829 and notified the same in the name of the petitioners. Further he passed order for carving out certain ortions of, the lands of the aforementioned Chaks from Northern end and amalagamating the same with in Chak No.902 Similarly, he passed order for preparing Chak No.802 having an area of 14 dacimals towards southern Western end of chak No.828. 10. Mr. Lalit Kishore. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that from a persual of the impugned orders it would appear that the same have been passed without application of mind inasmuch as even such lands over which the petitioners have irrigation pumps, has been allotted to the respondent No.5. The learned counsel submitted that from a persual of the impugned orders it would appear that the same have been passed without application of mind inasmuch as even such lands over which the petitioners have irrigation pumps, has been allotted to the respondent No.5. It was further submitted that the very fact that the original chaks, as noticed hereinbefore, we allotted to the petitioner because they were the owners of the major portions of the lands there of but by reason of the impupned orders the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and 42 decimals of land of chak No 95/2 and in respect of the third chak an area of I acre 42 decimals has been excluded which ends the petitioners have been claiming, whereas only 5 decimals of land claimed by the respondent No 5 had been excluded. 11. No counter affidavit in this case has been filed by the respondents. 12. It appears that the learned Joint Director, Consolidation has passed the impugned order on some confusion because three revision applications bad been disposed of by him by the same order. 13. The appeal preferred by respondent No 5 and consequently the revision applications filed by the petitioners against the appellate order should have been kept confined to, the claim made by the respondent No 6 in any event, if the Joint Directer, Consolidation was not satisfied with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, he should have made a local enquiry himself and allowed the parties to lead their evidences in accordance with law. 14. It has been rightly pointed out that although the respondent No 5 had made an objection with regard to his 5 decimals of land for being excluded from Chak No 95/2, 42 decimals of land has been given to him, and in order to compensante the petitioner No 4, the lands of the aforementioned ram Sarup Singh, ware included in his chak although they were not even given notice by the appellate court. In my view, the entire matter, therefore should be considered afresh by the respondent No.2 upon taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the materials brought on records by the authorities. 15. The Joint Director Consolidation shall bear in mind that the litigant cannot normally be given a relief which he has not prayed for before the Consolidation Officer. 15. The Joint Director Consolidation shall bear in mind that the litigant cannot normally be given a relief which he has not prayed for before the Consolidation Officer. However as the entire matter is remitted back to the respondent No 2, it is not necessary for this court to express its opinion any further in the matter. 16. The respondent No 2 shall for proper adjudication of the dispute may bifurcate the cases of the petitioners vis-a-vis. respondent No 5 and ram Sarup Singh and others from the revision application filed by the suresh Yadav and proceed to decide the revision applications in accordance with law. 17. The respondent No.2 shall also give notice to all perties concerned and thereupon shall proceed to dispose of the matter after giving the opportunity of being heard, 18. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Application allowed.