- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th May, 1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh allowing revision No. 1575, setting aside orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and making alteration in the Chaks of parties.
(2.) DISPUTES relates to the allotment of Chaks on land situated in Village Kuandev Chandpatti, Pargana and Tehsil Sagari, District Azamgarh. Petitioner is Chakholder of Chak No. 133 and Contesting Opp. Party is Chakholder of Chak No. 199. Learned Counsel for petitioner raised a number of arguments including that the impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed ex parte; Plot No. 838 petitioner's original holding was wrongly taken out by Deputy Director of Consolidation by making Chak in triangular shape; Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation without pointing out any illegality; Chaks of Opposite Party was wrongly, allotted on plots of original holding of her husband which was not in accordance with the principles laid down under Section 19 of U. P. C. H. Act. Sri R. P. Rai, learned Counsel for contesting Opposite Party in reply urged that impugned order was rightly passed in accordance with law after hearing the parties. He further urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly passed the impugned order considering original holding of husband of contesting Opposite Party also. Instead of petitioner's original holding on Plot No. 838 area. 370 acre on road side he was allotted Plot Nos. 838 and 839 area. 680 acre on roadside and no prejudice is caused to petitioner.
(3.) CONSIDERED arguments of learned counsel for the parties. The first argument that the impugned order was passed ex parte is unsustainable, in view of the admitted fact that Bhola Rai and Kishundeo Rai both are co-chak-holders and Kishundeo Rai was heard, who also signed order-sheet to acknowledge his participation before Deputy Director of Consolidation coupled with the fact that Sun of Kishundeo Rai is pairokar of petitioner-Bhola Rai. Kishundeo Rai and Bhola Rai were allotted one compact Chak. This fact is also proved that it is a proxy litigation. From perusal of the writ petition it is also clear that petitioner has not made any averment on fact of non- service of notices and a bald allegation of non-hearing without making any specific averment on fact cannot be accepted. The impugned order also makes it clear that it was passed after hearing both the parties. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Perusal of C. H. Form-23 of petitioner filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit makes it clear that petitioner's original holding consisted of 31 plots. Plot Nos. 838, 844, 849/2 area. 583 acre were allotted to him in his Chak considering his original holding. Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit makes it clear that Plot Nos. 829, 831, 832, 834, 835, 836, 838 and 849/2 Acre are original holding of husband of contesting Opp. Party.;