SMT. DROPADI DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner is assailing the order dated 19 Jan. 2017 passed by the first respondent, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly, whereby, the restoration application filed by the contesting respondents was allowed, thus recalling the earlier order dated 24 Oct. 2016, thereby, readjusting the allotment of the chaks.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that that both the contesting respondents have purchased a part of the plot no. 181. Petitioner is having 1/5 share, whereas, the contesting respondent is having 3/5 share. Earlier on 24 Oct. 2016, the revisional authority, in a revision instituted by the petitioner, had amended the chaks after hearing the parties, therefore, it is urged that the subsequent order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merit tantamounts to review which authority he is lacking.