Vikram Nath, J.: - Sri Markandey Upadhyay and Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Advo­cates have filed their Vakalatnama on be­half of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. All the pri­vate respondents are represented. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties this petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission itself under the Ruels of the Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is firstly that they were not properly impleaded in the two revi­sions of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and 4 & 5 jointly filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The second argument ad­vanced is that the Deputy Director of Con­solidation has allowed the revisions of the respondents without considering the case of the petitioners although they have been adversely affected by the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the respon­dents has sought to justify the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and has submitted that in chak allotment disputes this Court may not interfere. It has further been submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given reasons for allow­ing the revisions. 5. From a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it ap­pears that the case of the petitioners (opposite parties in one of the revisions), has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. It is well settled that where chaks are to be altered and parties are to be ad­versely affected proper hearing to them and consideration of there cases should be given due importance. In the present case I find that the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation has not discussed the case of the petitioners (opposite parties in one of the revisions) and has allowed the revisions after taking into consideration the claim of the revisionist (respondents in the petition). Further in chak allotment proceedings it is not necessary that affected chak holder be made party but what is important is that due opportunity be given. In the present case the petitioners may not be impleaded in one of the revisions but as five of them were impleaded in the other revision and petitioner No. 6 being brother of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, being duly represented and in any case now that the respondent No. 6 is aware of the revisions he may represent himself through his Counsel. 3 to 5, being duly represented and in any case now that the respondent No. 6 is aware of the revisions he may represent himself through his Counsel. As such the other argument of the petitioners also stands more or less accepted and petition­ers will have an opportunity of hearing before the Deputy Director of Consolida­tion. 7. In view of the above discussion petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.9.2010 passed in Revision Nos. 1401 and 1533 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur to decide the revisions afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Effort should be made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revisions within a period of Jour months from the date of production of cer­tified copy of this order. Petition Allowed.