- (1.) Heard Sri Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Srivastava, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no. 4, the sole contesting respondent. With consent of the parties this petition is being decided finally without calling for a counter.
(2.) The facts relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition are as follows:- It appears that during consolidation operations, a chak was carved out in the name of one Tika Ram, father of the parties. It also appears that Tika Ram died and, thereafter, in title proceedings the shares of the two brothers the petitioner and the contesting respondent were held to be 1/2 each by the S.O.C. in an appeal under section 11 (1) of the Act. It further appears that an application under Rule 109 (A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules was filed by the petitioner for implementation of the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation granting 1/2 share each to the parties.
(3.) Instead of merely recording the names of the two brothers, the sons of Tika Ram over the chak no. 293 and further that each was entitled to half share each therein, the Consolidation Authorities in proceedings under Rule 109A proceeded to partition this chak by metes and bounds. In such partition by metes and bound, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved as he is not satisfied by the portion of the chak no. 293, which has been allotted in his share.;