Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
(2.) The present petition arises out of proceeding of chak allotment. The chak of the petitioner proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was on his original holding. The contesting respondent filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed and the chak of the petitioner was disturbed. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer on the ground that he has been deprived of his original holding and has been allotted Uran chak. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation against which respondent No. 2 filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3.2.1983 allowed the revision filed respondent No. 2 and altered the chak allotted to the petitioner.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by allotting chak to the petitioner in the form of L-shape strip which is not cultivable and for no rhyme and reason rectangular shape of chak earlier allotted to the petitioner has been disturbed. It has further been urged that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is a very cryptic judgment and is totally devoid of any reasons. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Asha Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2003 (94) RD 588, wherein it has been held that the judgment without recording reasons or appreciation of rival b claims of the- parties is not sustainable.;