NANHEY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-4-1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the revision preferred by lives Khan and others was allowed and the Petitioner's chak No. 392 allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer was disturbed and his chak as proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was restored.

(2.) Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri S. A. Shahs for the Respondents no 2, 3 and 5.

(3.) The argument of Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order impugned in the writ petition suffers from manifest error of law in that the Deputy Director of Consolidation h"s allowed the revision by means of the impugned order without considering the view point of the Petitioner and without adverting to the inconvenience or injustice, which the Petitioner might suffer on account of the reversal of the scheme prepared by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Sri Shaha, on the other hand, urged that there is no manifest error of law and that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a case that a grave injustice has been done to him as a result of the order impugned in the writ petition.