Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents 4, 5 and 6.
(2.) With the agreement of the parties Counsel the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. The petitioners having a half share and respondents No. 4,5 and 6 were co-tenants. The original plots of the petitioners were plot Nos. 300 area 681 are and 306 area 693 are. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed allotment to the petitioners of two chaks one on plot No. 298 and 300 and the other on plot Nos. 304 and 306 etc.
(3.) It appears that the petitioners filed objections, which were time barred under section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioners claimed that they were given in their Chak on plot No. 298 etc. an area of 37 are on plot No. 300 only whereas according to share they were entitled to 75 are at that place. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 30.12.1998, Annexure-4 to the writ petition found that the respondents 4, 5 and 6 who were tenure-holder of Chak No. 152-A were allotted larger area on plot No. 298 etc. than was their share. In order to correct this the Consolidation Officer modified tine chaks allotted to the parties and increased the area in the Chak of the petitioners on plot No. 298 and 300. Aggrieved, the respondents 4, 5 and 6 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed.on 7.4.2001. Against that order the respondents 4, 5 and 6 preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 25.6.2001 allowed the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation observed that before the Assistant Consolidation Officer the chaks were allotted on the basis of the consent given by the petitioners. He has also taken into account the fact that the respondents 4, 5 and 6 have sunk a boring on plot No. 300 as a ground for justifying allotment of a larger area to them in their Chak on plot No. 300. It is not disputed that the village had been denotified and the respondents 4, 5 and 6 claimed that the boring was sunk by them after the denotification. On this basis the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and restored the chaks as were allotted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.;