JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents.

3. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 316/1, the total area of which was 0.166 hectare. The petitioner is the original tenure holder of the disputed plot. During the consolidation operations, 0.045 hectare of the plot was initially excluded from the consolidation operations. The respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed an application under Section 9 -A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') registering Case No. 516 claiming that the plot was liable to be included in the consolidation operations and was wrongly excluded from the same. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 3.3.1997 determined the valuation of the plot and included it within the consolidation operations. Against the order dated 3.3.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 756 of 1997 under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 29.1.1999 and 0.046 hectare on the eastern side of Plot No. 316/1 was excluded from the consolidation operations. A reading of the order dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation reveals that the order was passed after a spot inspection was made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against the order dated 29.1.1999, the respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed Revision No. 363 under Section 4 8 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, i.e., respondent no. 1.

4. Meanwhile, proceedings for allotment of chaks started and it appears from C.H. Form -23 of the petitioner annexed as Annexure S.A. -2 to one of the supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner that in the provisional consolidation scheme, the petitioner was proposed a chak on Plot Nos. 314/1 and 314/2 which were the original holdings of the respondents and the respondents were allotted a chak on Plot No. 316/1. Consequently, the petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer praying for an additional 0.015 hectare on Plot No. 316/1 which was allotted to respondent nos. 4 to 9. The said objections of the petitioner were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 27.4.1998. Against the order dated 27.4.1998, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 237 under Section 21 (2) of the Act, 1953 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 12.8.1998. Through his order dated 12.8.1998, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation withdrew 0.015 hectare from Plot No. 316/1 allotted to respondent nos. 4 to 9 and allotted the same in the chak of the petitioner. Against the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed Revision No. 331 under Section 4 8 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

5. It appears that Revision No. 331 and Revision No. 363 were consolidated and heard together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 17.2.2001 allowed Revision Nos. 331 and 363 by setting-aside the orders dated 12.8.1998 and 29.1.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and consequently restored the orders dated 3.3.1997 and 27.4.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer and, thus, the chaks allotted to the petitioner by the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer were retained. The petitioner filed a reca