Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijesh Shukla, for the respondent No. 4, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, for the respondent No. 7, and Shri A.K. Pandey, for the respondent No. 8. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the order dated 21.8.2014 passed in Revision No. 56/01 (Naresh v. Shaukeen and others) whereby an earlier order dated 12.6.2003 has been reiterated.
(2.) AFTER the order dated 12.6.2003 was passed by the Revisional Court, a restoration application was filed which was allowed and thereafter the parties were heard. After hearing the parties the DDC has maintained the earlier order dated 12.6.2003. Hence this writ petition. Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the order impugned, the petitioner has been allotted an "L" shaped chak. Referring to section 19 of the Act he has submitted that the section lays down that rectangular chaks be allotted and, therefore, the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of law and cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his tube -well exists in plot No. 422 and is his only source of irrigation. On account of the modification made in his chak by the impugned order certain land has been included therein whose level is higher than the plot wherein his private source of irrigation is situated and, therefore, this newly allotted area cannot be irrigated from his tube -well. His next submission is that Shaukeen, respondent No. 7 would have been accommodated without disturbing the chaks of anyone else. The last submission is that in the revision filed by Naresh no demand has been made against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner's chak has been wrongly disturbed.;