S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 28.7.2005 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation whereby revision preferred by petitioner was dismissed and order dated 12.3.2003 and 19.10.2004 passed by Consolidation Officer and settlement Officer Consolidation respectively were lent affirmance.
(2.) It would appear from the record that the dispute revolves round Chak no. 65 situated in village muzaffarpur Pargana Nizamabad Tahsil Sadar District Azamgarh of which Gorakh Rai, father of the parties was the recorded tenure holder. The disputants are three brothres namely, petitioner Diwakar Rai and respondents Vijay Bahadur Rai and Sudhakar Rai. The Asstt. Consolidation officer by means of order dated 8.7.1991 passed order by which all the three sons were pronounced successors of Gorakh Rai of the chak no. 65, and the said chak was partitioner to the extent 1/3 share each. There is no dispute in so far as shares of the contesting parties are concerned.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no provision for partition of Chak in the entire scheme of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that the only provision in the Act is contained in Section 9-C of the Act which contemplates partition of holding. He further argues that in case the partition has not been effected on publication of record under Section 9 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act and chak was carved out in the allotment proceeding, in that event, the chak cannot be partitioned. It is lastly argued that the impugned orders by which chak was partitioned by the consolidation authorities are vitiated by reason of being without jurisdiction.;