ORDER

K.N. Isra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6-10-1980 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jhansi, opposite party No. I by which he allowed the revision filed by opposite party No. 4 and the Chak of the petitioner was amended.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that opposite party No. 4 Smt. Shanti was allotted two Chaks. Chak No. 261 was allotted to her in respect of her holding which was recorded in her name as the wife of Jagdish while Chak No. 262 was allotted to her in respect of the holding which was recorded in her name as the daughter of Ram Das. Although, the opposite party No. 4 was the tenure-holder in respect of both the holdings which belong to her as the daughter of Ram Das and wife of Jagdish, but the Assistant Consolidation Officer proceeded to allot her two Chaks as aforesaid. The petitioner's Chak number is 282 and he was allotted a portion of plot No. 535 in his Chak. This plot 535 originally belonged to opposite party No. 4 and her sister Smt. Lalli. The sister of opposite party No. 4 Smt. Lalli was allotted a portion of plot No. 535 in her Chak and allotment to her is not disputed in the present writ petition. The opposite party No. 4 had filed objection which was directed against the allotment of plots contained in Chaks Nos. 261 and 262. She had asserted that she be allotted Chak on her original plot No. 535 which is near the village Abadi. This objection was registered as case No. 3130 and was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25th March, 1977. The objection was partly allowed and she was allotted and near the village Abadi on her original plots Nos. 530, 532 and 537, which she had held in her holding as the daughter of Ram Das. By this order, she got a Chak near the village Abadi on the land which originally belonged to her in her holding in the capacity as the daughter of Ram Das. She was, however, not allotted Chak on her original plot No. 535 on which she had claimed a Chak specially on the ground that trees, belonging to her, are situated thereon. The opposite party No. 4 thereupon preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 288 of 1977. It is said that at the time of hearing of the appeal, an application was moved by her that she is satisfied so far as her Chak No. 262 is concerned and she, therefore, did not press her appeal in respect of it. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal of opposite party No. 4 vide order dated 26th April, 1977 contained in Annexure `Vl' to the writ petition treating it as not pressed. The opposite party No. 4. after about three years filed another appeal on 16-4-1980 with an application for condonation of delay. This appeal was said to be directed against the order dated 29-3-1979. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 has admitted that the said date was inadvertently wrongly mentioned in the numo of appeal which was in fact directed against the order dated 25-3-1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No. 3130 and it was directed so far the allotment of Chak 261 was concerned. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoned the dealy treating the explanation furnished by the opposite party. No. 4 to be sufficient for condoning the delay and he partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 30-6-1980 contained in Annexure `11' to the writ petition and a Chak-road was provided as approach to her Chak No. 261 which was allotted to her on the aforesaid plots Nos. 530. etc. The opposite party No. 4 still aggrieved by the said order. preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner did not file any revision against the said order by which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by opposite party No. 4 and had partly allowed the same. The D