JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Mishra for the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing the orders dated 31.1.1999 and 6.1.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. These orders have been passed the proceedings for allotment of chaks. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that chaks were carved out in the village and the said carvation attained finality and possession was also delivered to the tenure-holders. Subsequent thereto a time barred appeal was preferred by the respondent no. 3 praying for a chak road through plot nos. 237 and 239. The objection was allowed on the basis of a compromise. 4. Aggrieved by the said compromise, the petitioner filed a recall application alleging therein that the compromise was fraudulent. The petitioner was not signatory to the compromise. In fact he had no notice of the case itself and his alleged signatures on the vacalatnama as also the compromise itself were forged. 5. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 6.1.2002 dismissed the restoration application. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the revision apart from the grounds mentioned in the restoration application it was also alleged that by the compromise order the trees and boring of the petitioner stood excluded from his chak. 6. In view of the allegation of the petitioner that his signatures on the vacalatnama as also the compromise were forged, expert opinion was called for. The expert opined with the signatures on the vacalatnama and the compromise were not those of the petitioner. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 29.12.2007 allowed the revision in part directing that the chak road by carved out in such a manner that half of its portion be taken from the chak of the petitioner and the other half from the adjoining chak. Aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although, his revision was allowed but no relief was in fact granted to him. He has referred to the correction chart appended with the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as also the correction chart appended to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although, his revision was allowed but no relief was in fact granted to him. He has referred to the correction chart appended with the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as also the correction chart appended to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both these charts are identical. 9. On the strength of this fact the leaned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the order impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation deserves to be set aside because the correction chart appended thereto does not tally with the observations made in the body of the judgment itself. 10. I have perused both the correction charts and there is no doubt that both are identical. Confronted with this fact, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has also admitted this factual position. 11. In view of the admitted position that despite the revision of the petitioner having been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, no relief has been granted to the petitioner as the modifications in the chaks proposed are identical to that which was directed by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Under the circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 12. I, therefore, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti is further directed to decide the revision a fresh after hearing all the parties concerned within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.