Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Naveen Srivastava, who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent No. 4. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the orders dated 27.8.2014, 29.3.2014 and 1.2.2014 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to plot No. 133 which is the original holding of the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to allotment of land of plot No. 133 commensurate to his share therein, as it was valuable road side land but he has not being allotted any area of this plot. The other reason for claiming the chak on the plot was that it was situated near the abadi and it was also near a Government tube -well. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was a Government Order issued in the year 1980 which provides how to deal with such commercially valuable road side land. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order has not adverted to this notification and, therefore, the order impugned is bad. Learned Counsel for the caveator on the other hand has supported the order impugned. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order it emerges that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a categorical finding that plot No. 133 which is the joint original holding of the parties, contains a transmission tower and it is situated on the road. On this account 0.030 hectares of this plot has been kept out of consolidation operations. The portion which is out of consolidation operations, abuts the road which the agricultural portion of this plot it lies behind the chak out area and has been allotted in the chak of the contesting respondent. On the contrary the petitioner has been allotted a chak on plot No. 107 which also abuts the same road. The other reasoning recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for rejecting the revision is that in case the demand of the petitioner is allowed it will lead an increase in the number of chaks proposed to him.
(3.) AS on date the petitioner has been allotted a compact chak on plot No. 107 abutting the road. A Supplementary -affidavit was filed in Court today annexing thereto the CH Form 23 of the parties. Perusal of the CH Form 23 of the petitioner reveals that plot No. 107 is the largest original holding of the petitioner.;