Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. Binod Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishnaji Khare, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. The writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. An objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by the father of the petitioner against the proposed allotment claiming that two chak roads dividing the third chak in four parts may be removed to make it compact and the sector road be extended till the pucca road. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.2.1981 rejected the objection. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 30.8.1986. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 24.4.1989 decided the revision.
(2.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made certain adjustment and has mentioned in the operative part of his order that the revision is being allowed but he has further worsened the chak of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner that two chak roads dividing his third chak into four parts which has resulted into allotment of six chaks to him should be removed and he should be allowed a compact chak at that place has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. If it has further been urged that by the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the original area near his private source of irrigation has been substantially reduced and the variation is more than 25% which is against the provision of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order but no counter -affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in the writ petition.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the records.;