KRISHNA MURARI, J. Heard Sri V. P. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ayub Khan for sole contesting respondent No. 2. 2. Sri Ayub Khan has made state ment that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of under the Rules of Court. 3. The petition arises out of chak al lotment proceedings. 4. Against the order passed by Con solidation Officer dated 19. 9. 2005 deciding the objection under section 21 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the act) respondent No. 2 filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 29. 3. 2006. Respondent No. 2 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 29. 2. 2008 allowed the same and disturbed the chak of the petitioner. An application dated 8. 5. 2008 was filed by the petitioner to recall the said order on the ground that it was ex-parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the application on the same day on the ground that the order dated 29. 2. 2008 was passed after hearing the par ties and was not ex-parte. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that no notices or summons were ever served upon the peti tioner and the order dated 29. 2. 2008 was passed ex-parte without any notice or op portunity of hearing and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly dismissed the recall application only because in the order dated 29. 2. 2008 it was recorded in a mechanical manner that the parties have been heard. It has further been submitted that even otherwise, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has deprived the petitioner of his original holding without recording any reason or even discussing the case of the petitioner. 6. In reply the learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the im pugned order. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the par ties and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the order dated 29. 2. 6. In reply the learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the im pugned order. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the par ties and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the order dated 29. 2. 2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that there is absolutely no discussion about the case of the petitioner nor any reason has been re corded for disturbing his chak and depriving him of his original holding. Apart from the fact that it has been recorded in the or der that Counsel for the parties have been heard, there is nothing therein which may go to show that the petitioner was heard and his case has been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Cate gorical, averments on oath has been made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that no notice or information was ever served upon the petitioner before passing the order dated 29. 2. 2008. There is no reason to dis believe the said averments particularly when the respondent has chosen not to file any counter affidavit. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 29. 2. 2008 as well as 8. 5. 2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 10. The writ petition stands allowed. 11. The dispute stands remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolida tion to decide the revision afresh on merits expeditiously after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Petition Allowed. .