Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Lal Chandra Yadav holding brief of Sri Kailash Nath, who has filed appearance on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The writ petition arises out of an objection filed by one Parwati under section 9A(2). This objection was decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by his order dated 17.9.1972, which has been passed on the basis of a compromise.
(2.) ALTHOUGH it has been sought to be conveyed that there were five separate objections and five separate orders were passed, only one order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.9.1972 has been filed on record. By this order, the petitioner was granted 1/8 share in the disputed property. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner appears to have filed appeal. His contention in the appeal was that the share of the petitioner was more than 1/8 and that the shares had been wrongly determined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The appeals as also the consequential revisions have been dismissed. Hence this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised two issues. His first ground for assailing the impugned orders is that there was total non compliance of the provisions of Rule 25 -A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. His second contention is that the Assistant Consolidation Officer does not have the right to determine the share of parties during consolidation proceedings and, therefore, his order was wholly without jurisdiction and the appellate and revisional authorities have committed manifest illegality in not setting aside such order.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.;