R. H. ZAIDI, J. Heard learned coun sel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-10-1985 passed by Deputy Director of Con solidation allowing the revision filed by Respondent No. 5, Shri Mahendra Singh, son of Shri Malda. 3. It appears that after the enforce ment of the U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act in the village concerned where the land in dispute is situate, the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed four chaks to be allotted to the petitioner. Per sons who were aggrieved by the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer, filed their objections, no objection was filed by the petitioner or Shri Mahendra. Consequently, the chaks proposed for the petitioner remained in tact and were allotted to him. Condition remained the same at the stage of the Consolidation Officer. Even before the Consolidation Officer, no objection was filed by Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, it appears t hat Shri Raja Ram filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolida tion against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The said appeal was decided in terms of compromise by judgment and order dated 3-4-1985. At this stage, Mahendra Singh was not a party. Then against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Respondent No. 5 filed a revision. A revision is also alleged to have been filed by one Shri Prasada. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and made certain modifica tions in the chaks of the parties by judg ment and order dated 10-10-1985. Hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that Shri Mahendra Singh had no locus standi to intervene in the matter as he neither filed any objection before the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer nor objected against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The case was decided by the Settlement Officer Con solidation on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties and from the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, he was not adversely af fected at all. Therefore, he had no locus standi to file the revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdic tion to entertain his revision and to allow the same. 5. Therefore, he had no locus standi to file the revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdic tion to entertain his revision and to allow the same. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Shri Mahendra Singh, at tempted to justify the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation. He has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted chak to Mahendra on his original holdings. Petitioner was, thus, not adversely affected by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The present petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 7. The questions for determination before this Court are as to whether Shri Mahendra Singh had the locus standi to file the revision against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and as to whether his chak was adversely affected by the said order. On the record, documen tary evidence regarding chak allotted to Shri Mahendra Singh by the Consolida tion Officer has not been placed, nor in the counter-affidavit, it has specifically been stated that any plot, which was allotted to him by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer was taken out from his chak by the order passed by the Settlement Officer Con solidation. In the absence of the record regarding original chak allotted to the petitioner, it cannot be held that Shri Mahendra Singh was in any manner af fected by the order passed by the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation. He, there fore, had no locus standi to intervene in the matter and to file the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The submissions made by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5, to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted. The Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly inter fered with the order passed by the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation at the in stance of Shri Mahendra Singh, who was not an affected party by the said order. It may also be noted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation decided the case on the basis of compromise between the par ties. Before the Settlement Officer, Con solidation, no objection was raised by Respondent No. 5 as he was not adversely affected by the said order. It may also be noted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation decided the case on the basis of compromise between the par ties. Before the Settlement Officer, Con solidation, no objection was raised by Respondent No. 5 as he was not adversely affected by the said order. In view of these facts, present petition deserves to be al lowed and the order passed by the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation deserves to be restored. 8. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10-10-1985 insofar it affects the chaks of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .