S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ pennon is directed against the order dated 23. 9. 2005 passed by Deputy Director of consolidation, Siddharth Nagar, allowing revision and making certain amendment in Chak of the petitioner and contesting Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the proceeding of allotment of Chak. ( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) FROM perusal of the record, it transpires that Opposite Party No. 4 filed a time barred appeal against an order dated 25. 8. 2003 passed by Consolidation Officer, which was allowed and Chak of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 4 was altered, against which Opposite Party No. 2 preferred a revision which was allowed and petitioners Chak was disturbed. It is important to note from the record that petitioners Chak was not disturbed upto Settlement Officer of consolidation stage. Opposite party No. 2 preferred revision against an order dated 5. 2. 2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation i hough, petitioners Chak was not disturbed up to that stage, but while allowing revision, petitioners Chak was disturbed by the order of Deputy director of Consolidation and his original plot No. 259 (sic) 430 air was excluded from his Chak and a totally Udan Chak on plot No. 51 etc. was given to him. Learned Counsel for parties raised several argument as to illegality of the order and also that the order is non-speaking order. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the entire materials on record and impugned orders of Deputy Director of consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is clearly borne out that the orders are without any reason and without application of mind to the grievance of the parties. Appellate order is also without application of mind and is a non-speaking order. As both the appellate as well as revisional authorities have not considered the grievance of the parties and orders are not speaking older same are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. ( 5 ) IN view of the discussions made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed, impugned order dated 23 March, 2005 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and order dated 5. 2. 2005 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation are quashed. ( 5 ) IN view of the discussions made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed, impugned order dated 23 March, 2005 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and order dated 5. 2. 2005 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation are quashed. The matter is remanded to Settlement Officer of Consolidation who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to parties within 3 months from the date of production of certified copy. . .