Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner is holder of chak No. 167 and respondent No. 4 is holder of chak No. 144. At the stage of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, the petitioner was allotted two chaks-one of which was on plot No. 1023 on which the petitioner claims that there was a pumping set. The respondent No. 4 was allotted two chaks one at plot No. 1020 where undisputedly tube well of respondent No. 4 is installed and another chak on plot No. 995. It is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent were co-tenants except in respect of plot No. 995 which was self acquisition of respondent No. 4 and certain other plots which had been purchased by tire petitioner and those in respect of which patta was granted in favour of the petitioner. The fourth respondent had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. His grievance is that his second chak, which is allotted on plot No. 995 was too small and that valuation of area of that number may be adjusted on his first chak on plot 1020 where the fourth respondent has also his tube well. The said revision of 4th respondent was allowed by the impugned order dated 20.1.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) Heard Shri A.M. Zaidi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Tiwari and Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. Two submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. One that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while making modification has not considered the loss of the petitioner. His submission is that the petitioner had pumping set at plot No. 1023 and though the Deputy Director of Consolidation had allotted to the petitioner the portion on which the tube-well stands but the area around the tube-well has been reduced which was being irrigated by the petitioner from the tube-well situate on plot No. 1023. The second submission is that plot No. 995 was mool number of respondent No. 4 and the same could not have been allotted to the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and further, plot No. 995 was of very high valuation and the petitioner being a small tenure-holder, allotment of lard of high valuation has reduced his area considerably.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for respondent is that there was no pumping set of the petitioner upon plot No. 1023 and that the tube-well on plot No. 1023 has been installed by the petitioner after the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and during the pendency of the revision and as such the petitioner is not entitled to be given any benefit on account of such installation.;