A legal practitioner can act for a person without a vakalatnama if appointed by such person by a document in writing, as per Order III, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and Rule 55 of the Revenue Court Manual.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 29. 10. 1994 and 27. 2. 1993 and for writ of mandamus staying the operation of the aforesaid two orders.

( 2 ) FROM the order sheet dated 27th April, 1998 it is apparent that office report dated 24th April, 1998 was that the respondents are not served and substitution application was filed. Shri R. P. Shastri, Advocate has made a statement that he is representing respondent Nos. 3/1 and 3/2, i. e. . the proposed heirs of the deceased respondent, who are mentioned in the substitution application dated 11th April, 1997 and is ready to argue the case finally at the admission stage. As the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits, therefore, the matter was heard and the supplementary affidavit was also asked for as per order dated 29th April. 1998, which has been filed, therefore, the matter was finally heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself.

( 3 ) THE brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioner got chak over plot No. 1 whereas the contesting respondent No. 3 had his chak over plot No. 32. Against the decision taken by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Varanasi, the petitioner preferred appeal under section 21 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. His contention was that his 1st chak over plot no. 45/1 has been allotted whereas he has been given second chak at plot Nos. 77 and 78. He demanded that his second chak at plot Nos. 77 and 78 should be abolished and he may be given chak over plot Nos. 82 and 83. His further contention was that he was given chak at plot No. 45/1 whereas others were chak at plot Nos. 35, 37 and 38.

( 4 ) THE Settlement Officer Consolidation considered the grievance of the petitioner and on 13. 11. 1992 rejected the demand of the contesting respondents. The petitioner filed Revision No. 568 before the Dy. Director of Consolidation as he was not given single chak. His contention was that he had his pumping set at plot No. 48. The Dy. Director of Consolidation rejected the revision of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 27. 2. 1993. It is further stated by the petitioner that two more revisions were filed, i. e. , Revision Nos. 575 and 576. These two revisions were filed by the contesting respondent Sonu. Revision No. 575 was filed by Sonu against Higooo and others, whereas Revision No. 576 was filed against the petitioner and others. These two revisions, namely Revision Nos. 575 and 576 were decided by a common judgment by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is stated that as a matter of fact all the three revisions (Revision Nos. 568, 575 and 576) should have been consolidated and decided by a common judgment by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but it was not done. It is further stated that while deciding the two revisions, i. e. . Revision Nos. 575 and 576 the Deputy Director of consolidation did not consider the case of the petitioner and disturbed his chak, vide his order dated 27. 2. 1993 as Revision No. 575 filed by respondent No. 3. Sonu against the petitioner was allowed. A copy of the order allowing the revision against the petitioner has been filed as annexure-5 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) IT is further stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly observed in his order that nothing was said from the side of the petitioner about his Improvement in the chak which he has disturbed in Revision No. 576. The grievance of the petitioner is that actually at the time of hearing of the Revision Nos. 575 and 576, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel was present, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly mentioned in the order that from the side of the petitioner his counsel Sri Kailash Narain Singh was heard. It is further stated that Sri Kailash narain Singh was the counsel in Revision No. 568, which was heard by the same De