The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper valuation and the right to appeal under the relevant sections of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

( 1 ) SECOND supplementary affidavit filed today is accepted on record. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Himanshu Shekher and Sri Anuj Kumar learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18. 1. 2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the revision No. 486 filed by Shivjor and other contesting respondents has been allowed.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are;

( 4 ) THE dispute relate to plot No. 439 situate in village Uchagaon, Pargana Nizamabad, Tahsil sadar District Azamgarh. The contesting respondents are original tenure holders of the plot and the said plot is said to be adjoining the road. The plot was kept out of consolidation proceedings. Subsequently on an application filed by the co-tenure holders of the said plot, an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 29. 3. 1988 valuing the plot No. 439 at 40 paisa and after the said plot being valued, a Chak was proposed in favour of the petitioner by Assistant consolidation Officer on 31. 1. 1992. The contesting respondents after coming to know that the plot No. 439 has been valued and has been allotted, filed an objection before the Settlement officer of Consolidation under Section 11 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 against the order dated 29. 3. 1988 passed by the Consolidation Officer. A copy of the said objection has been filed as Annexure S. A. 5 to the second supplementary a Mdavit. The settlement Officer of Consolidation treating the said objection as an appeal passed an order on 9. 12. 1997 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 29. 3. 1988 directed the plot No. 439 to be kept out of consolidation. Petitioner thereafter filed an application on 2. 6. 2001 praying for recall of the order dated 9. 12. 1997 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and also claimed benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 17. 10. 2003 allowed the application setting aside the order dated 9. 12. 1997. Against the said order dated 17. 10. 2003, a revision was filed which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 18. 1. 2006.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the chak was proposed in favour of the petitioner after plot No. 439 was valued by the order dated 29. 3. 1988 of the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that the objection of contesting respondents for recalling the order dated 29. 3. 1988 was filed on 20. 2. 1993 i. e. subsequent to the allotment in favour of the petitioner hence the petitioner was the necessary party to be heard. He further contended that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation committed error in setting aside the order. It is further submitted that it is true that the plot No. 439 was out of consolidation but on the application of the co-tenure holders the said valuation was made and no objection can be taken to the respondents to the valuation.

( 6 ) SRI Amar Shukh Rai assisted by Sri Himanshu Shekher supporting the impugned order contended that the land in dispute was kept out of consolidation which fact was also noted by the deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding another revision on 8. 1. 2002. He further contended that the land is valuable land on the road side to which original tenure holders right cannot be disturbed. It is contended that the contesting respondents were not aware of the valuation of the land which was ex parte done by the Consolidation Officer.

( 7 ) I have considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

( 8 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the plot No. 439 was kept out of consolidation and was not included in consolidation scheme. Further, there is material on record that the plot No. 439 is on the road side and valuation of the land of plot No. 439 was made on