Anil Kumar, J.

Matter is taken up in the revised list.

2. None appeared on behalf of the private respondents.

3. Heard Shri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.01.1994 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad.

5. Facts in brief of the present case are that at the time of starting of consolidation proceedings, a dispute arisen in respect of the allotment of chak before the Consolidation Officer. By order dated 10.02.1993, the Consolidation Officer has decided the matter.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.2/Shri Mewa Lal filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. By order dated 25.11.1993, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad dismissed the appeal, challenged by opposite party no.2 by filing a revision (Revision No.1205) under Section 48 of U.P. C. H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad. By order dated 18.01.1994, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad has given a plot Nos.10/2, 11/2, 12, 13, 14 and 24 to the