Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Varma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri. Arvind Upadhyay and Sri Durga Singh for respondent No. 2.
(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Map, which has been prepared for reference, certified copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -1A to the writ petition. A perusal thereof indicates that the dispute is confined only to the allocation of 1/4th share of respondent No. 2 over Plot No. 36. The same was proposed on the North -Western side of the said plot. While passing the order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has finalized the said share to be allocated to the respondent No. 2 in the North -South direction on the Western side of Plot No. 36. Sri. Varma submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has put the petitioner to a very disadvantaged position and on the other hand has allowed access to the portion allotted to the respondent No. 2 from three sides through Chak -roads. This, according to the petitioner, is an absolutely unjustified allocation and it also prejudices the petitioners, who have 3/4th share and who have been allocated the Eastern side of the Plot. As a result whereof the access of the petitioners to the said plot will be impeded as the respondent No. 2 would be between the Abadi and the plot allotted to the petitioners.
(3.) HE further contends that the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the allocation is justified as the allotted area would be near the Abadi of respondent No. 2. The submission is that the Abadi of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 are both situated on the same place, as such, the reason is irrational.;