S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.4.1993 by which pursuant to the direction of this Court given in writ petition No. 18399 of 1988 matter has been decided. Proceedings are under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act, which is in respect to allotment of plot in the chaks of the parties
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appears for the respondents.
(3.) In view of the argument from both sides and in the light of the decision as given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the only question which appears to be in issue is that whether adjustment of Plot No. 72 in the chak of the parties, on the facts can be said to be justified. There is no dispute about the fact that both the parties are co-sharers to the extent of 1/2 and 1/2 in plot No. 72. The said plot is said to be of good quality and its allotment is claimed to be important for both sides. From the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that he has tried to adjust the plot in the chak of the parties by saying that both are to be given 1/2 and 1/2 in that plot. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that finding is incorrect and is against the record for the reasons that total area of plot No. 72 was 9534 Sq. Yards and petitioner has been given only an area of 3970 Sq. Yards at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and although contesting respondents received lessor area than his share but remaining area was allotted in the chak of other parties i.e. Durga Devi Deen, Radhey and Ram Kripal. Submission is that if in the chak of the petitioner excess area than 1/2 of plot No. 72 has been allowed then certainly respondent can claim adjustment accordingly. But at the same time if the petitioner has been allowed even lessor area than 1/2 of plot No. 72 for which he is entitled then no adjustment from petitioner's chak in respect to plot No. 72 can be made. Submission is that this Court in earlier writ petition also had made observation that respondents could have demanded the short fall in the area so allotted to him in plot No. 72 by impleading the chak holder to whom the area of that plot has been given.;