S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.)IMPUGNED herein are the judgments dated 6 -9 -2003 and 7 -7 -2002 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation Jaunpur respectively.
(2.)I have heard Sri R.S. Verma, for the petitioner and Sri K.C.K. Srivastava, appearing for the Opp. Parties. Both the counsel conjoined to urge that the matter may be decided at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners preferred not to file rejoinder affidavit and submitted that the matter may be decided on the basis of respective contentions made across the bar and averments as embodied in the writ petition and counter affidavit. In the above perspective, I feel inclined to decide the matter at the very threshold.
The petition has been instituted by the petitioner with the threadbare theme that the Chaks allotted at the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer includes chaks from his original holding and at subsequent stages, he has been completely denuded of chaks in his original holding and instead, he has been assigned Udan Chak. The petitioner had his original holding on Chak Nos. 842/1, 842/2 and 842/3. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer had carved out chaks in a manner, which included his original holding. The Consolidation Officer improved upon the proposal by taking out some plots from the original holding of the petitioner and re -assigning chak on holdings other than his original holdings. At the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation his original holding further dwindled and the petitioner was assigned chaks on holding No. 755. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner and Opp. Parties preferred their respective revisions. The Deputy Director Consolidation dismissed petitioner's revision and allowed the revision preferred by Opp. Parties. While allowing revision of the Opp. Parties, the Deputy Director Consolidation completely denuded petitioner of his residuary chaks on his original holding. It is in the above perspective that the present petition has come to be filed.

(3.)THE man stay of petitioner's argument revolves round the ground that the orders impugned are bereft of reasons and suffer from non -application of mind verging on violation of the conditions contained in Section 19 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.