JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.: - 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Swami Nath filed an application under Section 28 of U.P.L.R. Act on 9.11.1995 against gaon sabha and the petitioner complaining that the area of plot No. 862 was 0.78 acres as shown in the revenue record however in the map it was shown to be less than that. During pendency of the case respondent No. 1 purchased the property from Swami Nath hence she was substituted in the case at the place of Swami Nath. The case was ultimately registered as case No. 194 of 2004 and was allowed by Chief Revenue Officer (C.R.O.) Ballia on 12.1.2005. Against the said order petitioner filed revision No. 37/B of 2005-06. Commissioner, Azamgazrh, Division Azamgarh dismissed the revision on 4.8.2006, hence, this writ petition. 3. The C.R.O. simply approved the report of revenue inspector who had stated that he had inspected/surveyed the plot and given the report on the basis of the same. 4. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that survey was done before issuing notice to the petitioner. In my opinion survey ought to be done after notice to both the parties. From the impugned order it is clear that after survey had been done, notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that in case the Court is of the opinion that survey should be done in the presence of both the parties then said order may be passed and both the parties may be directed to appear before the court below on a particular date. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. 6. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Chief Revenue Officer, Ballia on 18.10.2012. On the said date C.R.O. Ballia shall fix a date and time for survey after about one month and apart from the petitioner and respondent No. 1 notice shall also be given of the date of survey to all other concerned parties i.e. tenure holder of such adjoining plots which are likely to be affected in case application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by Swami Nath predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 1 is allowed. Thereafter survey shall be done in the presence of the parties concerned if they are present and then fresh order shall be passed. 7. Petitioner had also argued before the C.R.O. at the earlier stage that even the area of his plots was less, however, no formal application under Section 28 of the Act was filed by him. Petitioner if so advised may file a formal application for the said purpose. However, if that is to be done then it shall be done positively within two weeks from today and the said application shall be consolidated with the application of respondent No. 1 on which proceedings have been initiated and both shall be decided by one order. C.R.O. shall decide the matter very expeditiously. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties, if any adjournment is granted to any of the parties then it shall be on a heavy cost which shall not be less then Rs. 250/- per adjournment payable before the next date failing which defaulter party shall not be permitted to participated in the proceedings. All efforts must be made to decide the matter before 31.3.2013. The C.R.O. Must in his order give his own reasons based on evidence.