JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This proceeding is arising out of chak allotments among the parties herein during consolidation proceedings.

3. Initially, one chak on Plot No.794 and others was allotted to the petitioner no.1 Shyam Singh and it was maintained at the stage of Consolidation Officer also.

4. Petitioner no.1, Shyam Singh was satisfied with the allotment of one single chak on his respective original number however, on a limited issue of valuation of land, he filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur.

5. One Sher Singh as well as some other chak holders have also filed rest of the appeals.

6. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation decided about 33 appeals by a consolidated order dated 15.2.1989 and by a small order disposed of all the appeals and approved an amended table of allotment of chaks.

7. Petitioners herein remained aggrieved that the order has more adversely affected them as number of chaks which were one at the stage of Consolidation Officer were increased to two and also kept their original plots bearing Nos.794, 795 and 796 out of the Consolidation, therefore, they preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur.

8. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed four revision petitions including the revision petition filed by petitioners and prepared an amended chart. The petitioners were satisfied by the order dated 24.6.1992 passed in the revision petition.

9. One Sadhu Ram filed a restoration application that the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision petitions was an ex-parte order. Restoration application was rejected vide order dated 18.4.1994. Subsequently, one Dhooman alias Dhoom Singh filed another restoration application that he was not heard during the revision petition and decision thereof has disturbed his holding.

10. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.4.1994 allowed the above referred restoration application and set-aside the order dated 24.6.1992 and directed that revision petitions be heard afresh on merits.

11. Aforesaid referred order was not immediately challenged by the petitioners.

12. In pursuance of above referred order, Deputy Director of Consolidation, decided the revision petitions vide order dated 11.12.1998 after hearing all parties and included petitioners' holding on Gata Nos.794, 795 and 796 within consolidation proceedings and allotted Chaks to original holders in accordance with their respective shares according to their respective valuations.

13. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 15.2.1989, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur and orders dated 22.1.1996 and 11.12.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur.

14. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties decided the revision petitions including the revision petition filed by petitioners and accepted the grievance of petitioners vide order dated 24.6.1992, which does not require any interference.

15. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the restoration application filed by one Sadhu Ram by a reasoned order dated 18.4.1994, but committed an error by allowing another restoration application filed by one Dhoom Singh vide order dated 22.1.1996 whereby not only the restoration applicati