Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48590 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 229 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahajan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Sultanpur And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapil Dev Chaubey,Mohan Singh,Prabhat Kumar,Raghvendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3, Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. In the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Case No. 2615/2024 Computerized Case No. 202454046800002615 under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and rejected the revision only on the ground of nonjoinder of parties. In the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 it has been recorded that Gata No. 2451 on which chak holder no. 839 and 1484B and Gata No. 2460, on which chak nos. 1587, 1588 and 1344 the chak holder has not been made a party and only on the ground of nonjoinder of party the revision has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that nonjoinder of party is a defect which is curable in nature and had obviously been made an option to the petitioners to move a suitable application for impleading the concerned chakdar as a party in the said revision and without giving opportunity the revision could not be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. After hearing the parties and perused of the record it is noticed that the revision has been rejected on the ground of nonjoinder of party. It is submitted that an opportunity should have been given to move an appropriate application for impleadment, so that they could make effected chak holders as respondents in the said revision and passing the impugned order without giving any opportunity is illegal and abritrary. There is merits in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity was given to the them and merely on noticing the effected chak holders have not been made respondents, the revision has been dismissed. 5. Accordingly, I am of the concerned view that the petitioners after being afforded an opportunity to move an application for impleadment and prayed stipulated time that the petitioners had not complied the directions of the revisional court had not made a party in the said revision and the revision could have been dismissed in the manner in which it seems that in the revision there is defect of nonjoinder of party the revisional court has erred material irregularity. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur the petitioners undertake to move an appropriate application for impleadment within next two weeks. In case the said application is moved, an appropriate order shall be passed by the reivsional court and he shall decide the revision in accordance with law. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench