JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. – Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel. 2. The impleadment application moved by the petitioner vide C.M. Application No.10334 of 2016 is allowed. The impleadment shall be carried out during the course of day. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.3.2014 in case No.23-50/2013-14 and appellate order dated 31.7.2014 in case No.123 under Section 21 (2) of Consolidation Act and Revisional order dated 30.9.2014 in Civil Revision No.171 under Section 48 of Consolidation Act passed by opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 respectively. 4. The facts in brief as enumerated in the petition are that the petitioner claims to be a poor farmer having an agriculture land bearing gata No.208. This gata having an area of 0.298 is his original land which is beside the main road. During consolidation proceedings the Chak Committee wrongly proposed and allotted the udan chak to the petitioner bearing gata No.418/419, which is infertile land. Against the proposed allotment he moved an application before the Chak Committee but the chak committee without considering the facts mentioning in the application passed the order dated 1.3.2014. Against order dated 1.3.2014 petitioner moved an objection/appeal before opposite party No.2-Consolidation Officer. Opposite party No.2 rejected the objection/appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved against rejection of his appeal the petitioner preferred a revision before the D.D.C., which too was rejected. Lastly, the appeal filed by the petitioner before opposite party No.2 against revision has been dismissed. The revision filed against appellate order has also been rejected. It is the specific case of the petitioner that without following the provisions of U.P.C.H.Act the opposite parties have allotted different chaks to the petitioner which is barren land. 5. Petitioner says that right from the level of Consolidation Officer his case has not been considered on merits anywhere. Consolidation Officer after considering the objections of number of other parties has simply stated that it is impossible to concede to the demand of the petitioner. There is no doubt about the facts that the petitioner's original holding is of gata No.208 which is road side land. It is valuable land of the petitioner and it has not been disputed that the petitioner has any other land or any other gata except this. Order of the revisoinal court mentions this fact. There is no doubt about the facts that the petitioner's original holding is of gata No.208 which is road side land. It is valuable land of the petitioner and it has not been disputed that the petitioner has any other land or any other gata except this. Order of the revisoinal court mentions this fact. It is strange that none of the courts have ever tried to compensate the petitioner or tried to place him on his original holding. The order of the Consolidation Officer is totally cryptic and whimsical. 6. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rejected his appeal on purely technical ground which ought not to have been dismissed. The merit has not been touched. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration all the pleas of the petitioner but has not given any answer to any of the demands. Only one line cryptic order has been mention that the order of S.O.C. appears to be correct. This is a pathetic case where all the three courts have failed to act in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. A poor person has been harassed altogether and this Court cannot shut its eyes towards the apathy of the lower courts. 7. In view of above, the order dated 1.3.2014 in case No.23- 50/2013-14 and appellate order dated 31.7.2014 in case No.123 under Section 21 (2) of Consolidation Act and Revisional order dated 30.9.2014 in Civil Revision No.171 under Section 48 of Consolidation Act passed by opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 respectively, are hereby set aside. 8. The matter is remanded back to the level of Consolidation Officer to consider it once again after giving opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties that were before the Consolidation Officer at the level of S.O.C. and at the level of revisional Court. 9. Court is aware that opposite parties in this writ petition ought to have been heard by issuing notice to them in this petition but the Court feels that nature of the petition is such where ground realities have to be tested and can only be done at the level of Consolidation Officer. No useful purpose will be served if notices are issued here in High Court and the opposite parties are heard and then the matter is remanded back to the original court after about 10 to 20 years. No useful purpose will be served if notices are issued here in High Court and the opposite parties are heard and then the matter is remanded back to the original court after about 10 to 20 years. It will be in the interest of justice that the matter may be remanded back pronto. It is ordered accordingly. 10. However, it is made clear that Consolidation Officer will ensure that all the necessary parties are given opportunity of hearing by issuing notice and fixing date including the petitioner. The matter shall be heard and decided expeditiously, say within a maximum period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. 11. The petition is disposed of finally. Petition Disposed of.