R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the dated 31.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to carve out chak No. 191 in favour of the petitioner according to the provisional consolidation scheme on his original plots, has also been made.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on receipt of C.H. Form No. 5 an objection was filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, for short 'the Act', claiming his chaks on his original plots. The objection filed by the petitioner was opposed by the contesting respondents. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence. The Consolidation Officer after going through the evidence on the record, allowed the objection filed by the petitioner in part by judgment and order dated 16.4.1983. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal. Here, it may be noted that six other appeals were also filed against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by judgment and order dated 17.1.1984. The six -appeals filed by the contesting respondents were also allowed in part by judgment and order dated 4.6.1983. By the order passed in one of the appeals, filed by the contesting respondents, the chak of the petitioner was disturbed. Consequently, he had to file a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The contesting respondents also filed revision against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Both the revisions were consolidated as in the same common questions of law and facts were involved and the parties were also the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents by his judgment and order dated 31.10.1984. Hence, the present petition.;