JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri L.P. Singh, for the petitioner. In spite of written information being given to Sri Gaurav Sisodia, Advocate, who are appearing for the contesting respondents, he did not turn up for arguments. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Joint Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.1991 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 04.01.2006, arising out of chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The petitioner purchased plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) of village Terha, pargana Sumerpur district Hamirpur from Matadin through sale deed dated 07.09.1971. On the basis of sale deed, his name was mutated in the khatauni 1378 F. The village was earlier placed in consolidation operation by notification dated 17.08.1972. On the village being notified under Section 9 of the Act, the objections were filed between the parties. However during pendency of the revision, notification under Section 6 was issued as such earlier proceedings were abated. Thereafter again notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act was issued in 1980. In basic consolidation records the name of the petitioner was recorded over plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) and the names of Patirakhan and Jagroop sons of Ram Sewak were recorded over 1152/14/1 (area 1.80 acre), 1152/14/2 (area 3.98 acre). It may be mentioned that in last settlement records total area of 91.80 acre of plot 1152 was recorded. There was partition between the zamindars, in which 1/3 share i.e. 30.60 acre was recorded in the Mohal Rajaram and 2/3 share i.e. 61.20 acre was recorded in Mohal Maniram. During survey and partal total area of plot 1152 was found 88.15 acre. 4. Patirakhan and others (respondents-2 to 4) filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, for correcting the area of plot 1152/13 and 1152/14 as 11.18 acre. It has been alleged that plots 1152/13 and 1152/14 (total area 11.18 acre) was of Mohal Maniram and was in their possession from long before abolition of zamindari. In consolidation extracts, the area of different sub-plots of 1152 have wrongly shown in which their area has been shown as 4.68 acre. Prior to consolidation, they filed Case No. 15 of 1970 for correction of the area of sub-plots of plot 1152, which was decided on 08.06.1972 but it could not be given effect to in revenue records. In consolidation extracts, the area of different sub-plots of 1152 have wrongly shown in which their area has been shown as 4.68 acre. Prior to consolidation, they filed Case No. 15 of 1970 for correction of the area of sub-plots of plot 1152, which was decided on 08.06.1972 but it could not be given effect to in revenue records. The petitioner contested the aforesaid objection on the ground that plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) was of Mohal Rajaram and Matadin was its tenant. After date of vesting Matadin became its bhumidhar from whom he had purchased this plot. The respondents had nothing to do with the land falling in Mohal Rajaram. In Case No. 248/22 of 1964 Jagroop Singh Vs. Matadin decided on 14.09.1964, the respondents were found to be bhumidhar in possession of 8.08 acre alone. Apart from this area, the respondents were not in possession of any other area of plot 1152. Judgment dated 14.09.1964 was binding upon the respondents. The petitioner or Matadin were not parties in Case No. 15 of 1970 as such order dated 08.06.1972 was not binding upon them nor this order was ever given effect to. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who by the order dated 21.06.1982 dismissed the objection of the respondents. The appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed by order dated 12.10.1984. However the revision was allowed by order dated 06.12.1986 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer. 5. After remand, the respondents examined Patirakhan and filed their documentary evidence. The petitioner examined Dalpat and filed his documents. Tenure holders of other sub-plots of 1152 namely Ram Sanehi and Chhote Lal were also examined and filed their documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 01.12.1989, held that in khatauni 1375 F- 1377 F plots 1152/14/1 (area 1.80 acre) and 1152/14/2 (area 3.98 acre) were recorded in the names of the respondents and plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) was recorded in the name of the petitioner. Although by the order dated 08.06.1972, passed in Case No. 15 of 1970, plot No. 1152/13/2 (area 5.20 acre) was directed to be recorded in the name of the respondents but it is not clear as to how this plot was directed to be recorded in the names of the respondents. Although by the order dated 08.06.1972, passed in Case No. 15 of 1970, plot No. 1152/13/2 (area 5.20 acre) was directed to be recorded in the name of the respondents but it is not clear as to how this plot was directed to be recorded in the names of the respondents. The petitioner was not party in this case nor the order passed in this case has been given effect to. The name of Matadin was recorded over plot 1152/15/4 (area 6.27 acre) in 1359 F as khudkast holder and thereafter as bhumidhar in 1368 F and 1378 F. On the basis of sale deed executed by Matadin in favour of the petitioner, his name was mutated in khatauni 1378 F. On these findings he dismissed the objection of the respondents. However, in the appeal filed by the respondents, Settlement Officer Consolidation held that Consolidation Officer had considered the case in respect of plot 1152 only and had not considered the case in respect of other plots and allowed the appeal, by order dated 28.07.1990 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer. After remand, the Consolidation Officer, by order dated 22.10.1990 held that the respondents filed evidence in respect of plot 1152 and in written arguments also plot 1152 alone was pressed. There was neither any evidence in respect of other plots nor arguments in respect of other plots were raised as such he again by order dated 22.10.1990 dismissed the objection of the respondents. 6. The respondents filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 05.01.1991. The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1809) from the aforesaid order. It may be mentioned that the petitioner also filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1483) from the order dated 28.07.1990. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard together by Assistant Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 30.04.1991 held that in Case No. 15, filed by Matadin for demarcation, by order dated 11.06.1962, it was found that Matadin was only in possession of 2.99 acre only and an area of 3.28 acre of plot 1152/15/4 was in possession of the respondents. Sub-Divisional Officer therefore dropped the proceeding for demarcation on the ground that issue relating to title was involved between the parties. Sub-Divisional Officer therefore dropped the proceeding for demarcation on the ground that issue relating to title was involved between the parties. The respondents were declared bhumidhar of 1152/14/1, 1152/14/2 and 1152/13 (area 2.30 acre) in Suit No. 248/22 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by judgment dated 14.09.1964. In Case No. 15 of 1970 decided on 08.06.1972, the respondents were held as bhumidhar of plot 1152/13/2 (area 5.20 acre). As in Case No. 15, decided on 11.06.1962, filed by Matadin he was found in possession of 2.99 acre only as such the petitioner was entitled to 2.99 acre land only. An area of 5.78 was recorded in the names of the respondents in khatauni, an area 2.30 acre was given to them in Suit No. 248/22 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and an area of 3.28 acre land was found in their possession in Case No. 15 filed by Matadin. On these findings, the revision was allowed and an area of 3.28 acre has been directed from deleted from the name of the petitioner and recorded in the name of the respondents. It has been further held that as the demarcation of old sub-plots of plot 1152 was not in existence and such fresh survey was not possible and the area as recorded in last settlement record of plot 1152 be maintained. The petitioner filed Writ B No. 16094 of 1991 from the aforesaid orders. 7. In the meantime, Provisional Consolidation Scheme of the village was framed and the village was notified under Section 20 of the Act. The various chak objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer, in which chak of the respondents was also affected by orders dated 28.02.1984 and 21.11.1984. The appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed by order dated 11.04.1987. Thereafter, the respondents filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 1404) under Section 21 (1) of the Act. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.08.1988, although condoned the delay but held that chak of the respondents was already affected by orders dated 28.02.1984 and 21.11.1984. In case, the respondents were not satisfied, they would have filed appeal from the aforesaid orders and fresh objection under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable. On these findings the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the respondents by order dated 31.08.1988. 8. In case, the respondents were not satisfied, they would have filed appeal from the aforesaid orders and fresh objection under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable. On these findings the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the respondents by order dated 31.08.1988. 8. The respondents filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 691/243 of 1988) under Section 21 (2) of the Act, from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 27.05.1989 dismissed the appeal on the ground that chak of the respondents have been affected from the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 14422) from the aforesaid order. Assistant Director of Consolidation by the order dated 30.04.1991 passed in Revision No. 1809, arising out of title proceedings, directed for deleting an area of 3.28 acre from the chak of the petitioner and recording in the name of the respondents. Revision No. 14422 was also decided by order dated 30.04.1991, without any notice to the petitioner. Assistant Director of Consolidation by order dated 30.04.1991 held that as the respondents will get some more valuation in compliance of the order passed in title proceeding as such their chak would be affected. On these findings the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide chak appeal of the respondents afresh on merit. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 04.01.2006 held that as the petitioner has remedy to agitate his grievances before Settlement Officer Consolidation as such order dated 30.04.1991 was not liable to be recalled after such a long time. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 9. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that after dismissal of chak appeal of the respondents, they filed objection before Consolidation Officer under Section 21 (1) of the Act. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation have rightly dismissed the objection and appeal of the respondents. Assistant Director of Consolidation only on the ground that as the respondents will get some more valuation in compliance of the order dated 30.04.1991 passed in title proceeding as such their chak would be affected, allowed the revision and remanded the case to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide chak appeal of the respondents afresh on merit. Assistant Director of Consolidation only on the ground that as the respondents will get some more valuation in compliance of the order dated 30.04.1991 passed in title proceeding as such their chak would be affected, allowed the revision and remanded the case to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide chak appeal of the respondents afresh on merit. He submits that for giving enhanced valuation in compliance of the order in title proceedings, the reference is required to be submitted and chak carvation proceedings, which have become final cannot be reopened. The order of Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.1991 was exparte and was liable to be recalled but the recall application has been illegally rejected without considering the arguments of the petitioner. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Respondent-1 allowed the revision only on the ground that as the respondents will get some more valuation in compliance of the order dated 30.04.1991 passed in title proceeding as such their chak would be affected. Respondent-1 has not considered that this proceedings was a second round litigation in chak allotment matters. The reasons recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation was neither noticed nor discarded. It is usual practice that the reference used to made for giving enhanced valuation in compliance of the order in title proceeding. Thus the revision was allowed on irrelevant consideration. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.1991 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 04.01.2006 are set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide chak revision of the respondents afresh in accordance with law.