S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.5.2000 by which revision filed by opposite party was allowed.
(2.) Proceedings are under section 20 of UPCH Act which relates to allotment of chak between the parties. Needless to say that both parties can never be satisfied and it is not possible to satisfy both parties in its entirety and therefore, the concern of the Court should be that whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice calling for interference or not.
(3.) So far as case in hand is concerned, there is no dispute about the fact that plot No. 24/1 happens to be the largest part of holding of petitioner. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer an area of 249 air was given and the petitioner was placed at plot No. 24/1 etc. as first chak and on plot No. 35/2 etc. as his second chak. On filing objection before the Consolidation Officer in which the petitioner is said to have no received any opportunity petitioner was affected and although his first chak on plot No. 24/1 was not disturbed but his second chak was disturbed. On filing appeal by petitioner, appellate authority proposed to give an area of 253 air in addition to the earlier given by Assistant Consolidation Officer on plot No. 24/1. On filing revision by opposite party, adjustment made by appellate authority was set aside and the adjustment of Consolidation Officer was restored.;