JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are brothers. Amongst other plots, Plot Nos. 1951, 1959, 1957 and 1682 were the original holding of petitioners and respondent No. 2. During the consolidation proceedings held in the Village, petitioner No. 1 was allotted Chak on Plot Nos. 1951 and 1959 while respondent No. 2 was allotted Chak on Plot Nos. 1721 and 1682. Petitioner No. 2 was also allotted Chak on Plot Nos. 1951 and 1957. It is evident that all the brothers were allotted Chaks on their original holdings. 2. Dissatisfied with the arrangement made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.'), petitioners filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 1.1.2000. The demand of petitioner No. 1 was for allotment of a Chak on Plot No. 1682 on the ground that it was Do-fasli. Against the order dated 1.1.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') which was numbered as Appeal No. 1375. The S.O.C. vide order dated 26.6.2001 allowed the aforesaid appeal and altered the arrangement of Chaks allotting a Chak to petitioner No. 1 on Plot No. 1682 by withdrawing the same from respondent No. 2. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a recall application before the S.O.C. praying for recall of the order dated 26.6.2001 alleging that the same was passed without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The said recall application was dismissed by the S.O.C. vide judgment and order dated 31.1.2008. The respondent No. 2 filed another recall application alleging the same facts, but the said recall application was also dismissed by the S.O.C. vide order dated 25.9.2009. Consequently, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was numbered as Revision No. 873/2009 challenging the orders dated 25.9.2009, 31.1.2008 and 26.6.2001. 3. Consequently, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was numbered as Revision No. 873/2009 challenging the orders dated 25.9.2009, 31.1.2008 and 26.6.2001. 3. A perusal of the memorandum of Revision shows that in his Revision, respondent No. 2 had merely stated his grievance regarding proceedings before the S.O.C. culminating in the different orders passed by him and did not raise any grievance regarding the fact that certain plots especially Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 which were the original holdings of petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and were initially chucked out from the consolidation scheme should be included in the consolidation scheme as well as any grievance regarding allotment of four Chaks at the stage of S.O.C. It appears from the records and order of respondent No. 1 that till the stage of S.O.C., respondent No. 2 was allotted four Chaks. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 26.3.2010 allowed Revision No. 873/2009 instituted by respondent No. 2 and consequently set aside the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the S.O.C. withdrawing the Chak allotted to petitioner No. 1 on Plot No. 1682 and allotted the same to respondent No. 2 and through the same order respondent No. 1 also included Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 in consolidation scheme and also determined their valuation. A perusal of the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 shows that the aforesaid order has ostensibly been passed by respondent No. 1 after a spot inspection wherein he found standing crops on Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978. The order dated 26.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the spot inspection referred by respondent No. 1-D.D.C. in his impugned order dated 26.3.2010 was never made by him and in any case the petitioner No. 1 was never given any notice of the said spot inspection and there is no spot inspection report on the record. 4. Contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the spot inspection referred by respondent No. 1-D.D.C. in his impugned order dated 26.3.2010 was never made by him and in any case the petitioner No. 1 was never given any notice of the said spot inspection and there is no spot inspection report on the record. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the D.D.C. holding that the source of irrigation existing on Plot No. 1974 belongs to respondent No. 2 is without evidence and no such fact was brought to the notice of respondent No. 1-D.D.C. in the memorandum of Revision and no such demand regarding Plot No. 1974 was raised by respondent No. 2 in the memorandum of Revision. 5. Rebutting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that the order dated 26.3.2010 was passed by the D.D.C. considering the fact that petitioner was allotted four Chaks till the stage of S.O.C., which was contrary to principles enumerated in Section 19 of the Act, 1953 and Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 were wrongly chucked out of the consolidation scheme and have therefore been rightly included in the consolidation scheme. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. No report regarding spot inspection allegedly made by respondent No. 1 has been annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents and learned counsel for the respondents was not able to confirm whether any such report as referred by the D.D.C. was a part of records. The date of the spot inspection has also not been stated in the impugned order. In the circumstances the findings of respondent No. 1-D.D.C. that there were standing crops on Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 and consequential order including the aforesaid plots within the consolidation scheme even though they were initially chucked out of consolidation scheme is evidently without any evidence and contrary to law. In the circumstances the findings of respondent No. 1-D.D.C. that there were standing crops on Plot Nos. 1974, 1976 and 1978 and consequential order including the aforesaid plots within the consolidation scheme even though they were initially chucked out of consolidation scheme is evidently without any evidence and contrary to law. Further, counsel for respondent No. 2 was not able to bring to the notice of the Court any document showing that the source of irrigation installed on Plot No. 1974 allegedly belongs to him and was not able to convince the Court as to whether there was any evidence to support the findings of respondent No. 1 that the source of irrigation installed on Plot No. 1974 belonged exclusively to respondent No. 2. A comparative perusal of the Schedule appended to order dated 26.3.2010 as well as contents of the order show that no reasons have been given by respondent No. 1 to alter the arrangement of Chaks as finalized till the stage of S.O.C. and to withdraw from the petitioners, the Chak allotted on Plot No. 1682. 7. In the circumstances the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Fatehpur to pass fresh orders in Revision No. 873/2009 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The said Revision shall be decided by respondent No. 1-D.D.C. within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.