Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47748 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 749 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gajraj Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation District Unnao And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra,Lalit Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation. 3. It has been submitted that the said revision was preferred by respondent No. 4 along with an application for condonation of delay which has been allowed in the impugned order and the revision has been finally allowed without issuing notices to the petitioner. He submits that it had falsely been stated in the order dated 09.09.2024 that the petitioner had appeared and his arguments were also heard. 4. To verify the contention of the petitioner, the original record was summoned which is before us. 5. The order indicates that the revision was filed by the private respondent no.4 on 7-8-2024, on which date it was put up before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Unnao, where the next date fixed was 21-10-2024 for consideration of the application for interim relief. A perusal of the order dated 7- 8-2024, which is in hand writing and has been read out by learned Standing Counsel before this court. It is clear that notices were never issued to the petitioner, who were the opposite party no.1 in the said revision. On the next date, the revisional authority has proceeded to condone the delay and allowed the revision without either issuing notices or hearing the petitioner. From the perusal of order sheet, it is clear that neither opposite party no. 2 nor their counsel has signed on the order sheet by the signatures of the revisionist and their counsel are available on all the dates when the case was listed. Further, I find that no Vakalatnama signed by opposite party no.1 is available on record. Despite the above, I find that in the impugned order, it has been stated that although parties have been heard, “ उभय पक मय अधधवकक उपसससत, ” धजनहह ससनक गयक। 6. From the original record, it is clear that the said fact recorded by the revisional authority is incorrect and contrary to the record. Even for a moment if the said fact is accepted, the revisional authority would have recorded some objections or arguments raised on behalf of opposite party no.2, but it seems that the order has been passed only after the perusal of the record, without noticing any of the contentions on behalf of the revisionist or on behalf of the opposite parties therein. Accordingly, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the order dated 21-10-2024 is illegal and arbitrary, and having been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7-8-2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back for the revision to be decided afresh in accordance with the law, expeditiously, say, within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceeding and shall not take unnecessary adjournments. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 14.8.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench