Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents. None has put in appearance on behalf of contesting respondents. The petition arising out of an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is directed against the order dated 26.11.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the order dated 27.8.1976 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order dated 30.4.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Varanasi.
(2.) IT may be recorded that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has not been annexed to the writ petition and, therefore, no relief can be granted in so far as the order dated 30.4.1976 is concerned. Learned Counsel for the, petitioner submitted that plot No. 319 which is situated in front of his house was initially chak out but subsequently the same was valued and included in consolidation operations. This order valuing plot No. 319 was passed by another A.C.O. and it was an ex -parte order. He submits that this plot could not have been valued. In any case, since this plot was situated in front of his house it should have been allotted in his chak. The plot was valued without any notice or information to the petitioner.
(3.) IT is secondly submitted that petitioner has been allotted four chaks. No reason has been assigned for the same and, therefore, such allotment is patently illegal. A person can only be allotted four chaks with the permission of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in writing and in case such an allotment is made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself, the order in this regard should indicate cogent reasons for the allotment of four chaks.;