S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.1.1993 by which revision filed by the opposite party has been allowed.
(2.) The 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.) Parties learned Counsel have been heard. In view of submissions, following facts and situation emerges: So far as case in hand is concerned, dispute appears to be in respect to allotment of plot No. 752 in the chak of parties The petitioner claims that plot No. 752 is although not the original holding of the petitioner but at the same time, it is also not the original holding of the contesting respondents, rather it is the original holding of respondents No. 4 and 5 and at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage in the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the recorded persons and with their consent, chak was proposed to the petitioner on that plot. It is claimed that the petitioner was aggrieved for minor adjustment in respect to area covered by shadow and thus, he filed objection but it was rejected and the objection filed by contesting opposite party was allowed on account of which number of chak of petitioner has been made three, although petitioner is small tenure holder. It is claimed that appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and necessary changes were made. Submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation without meeting and reversing reasoning and finding given by appellate authority and without giving any finding in respect to property of the allotment as was made in petitioner's favour at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage has allowed the revision of the opposite party, learned Counsel for the respondents in opposition to the aforesaid, submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation after making spot inspection has properly adjusted the equity between the parties and thus 110 exception can be taken to it.;