Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Brajesh Shukla and Sri P.K. Sinha for the respondent No. 4 Balbir Singh. It is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 keeping in view the nature of the dispute which is entirely between these two persons. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The dispute relates to allotment of Plot No. 1434/1. C.H. Form 23 has been filed indicating that the same is the original holding of the petitioner. The location of the said plot has been explained with the aid of a revenue map appended as annexure 8 which demonstrates that the land is just adjacent to a link road and is facing the National Highway. This plot of land which is the original holding of the petitioner has now been allotted to the respondent No. 4 Balbir singh.

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons have been recorded for carrying out this alteration by the authorities. Even otherwise the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation erroneously records that if the revision preferred by the petitioner is allowed, other tenure holders would be affected