Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. Though the case has been taken up in revised list no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondents.
(2.) The original holdings of the petitioners consisted of plot Nos. 7, 8, 38, 39, 41,42, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 67, 94,95,100,156/1, 156/2,56, 61, 96, 117 and 37 both the petitioners were co-tenure holders to the extent of half share. The petitioner No. 2 transferred his share in plot Nos. 156, 157, 94 and 95 in favour of respondent No. 2.
(3.) At the stage of Assistant Consolidation stage petitioners were given two chaks one on plot Nos. 100, 98 and 95 etc. and the second chak on plot Nos. 59, 58, 60, 61,62, 63 and 64 etc. Similarly, respondent No. 2 was also allotted two chaks one on plot Nos. 95, 98 and 99 etc. and the second chakon plot Nos. 160, 159, 158 and 181 etc. Against the proposed allotment an objection was filed by respondent No. 2 with a prayer that the valuation of 0.41 decimal may be taken out from his first chak and the same be added in his second chak which has an area of only 0.25 decimal. The petitioners were not impleaded as a party in the objection of respondent No. 2 as no relief was claimed against them. The petitioners also filed an objection against proposed allotment mainly on the ground that chak allotted to him is "L" shaped, should be made rectangular. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.6.1981 disposed of the objection filed by respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved, he filed appeal. In appeal again relief claimed was that an area of 0.36 decimal be taken out from his first chak and the valuation may be allotted in his second chak,. The petitioners also filed an appeal with a prayer that his chak should be made rectangular. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated (Sic) respondent No. 2 and found that plot No. 99 is not his original holding and there is no justification for allotting the same in his chak. The Settlement Officer took out plot No. 99 from the chak of respondent instead allotted plot No. 93, 96 which included most of his original holdings. Still not satisfied, the respondent No. 2 went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 26.11.1982 allowed the revision and allotted plot Nos. 94, 95 in his chak.;