S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in tins petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.1.2002 by which two revisions filed by the opposite parties have been decided by a consolidated judgment and they have been allowed and necessary adjustment in the chak of parties have been made.
(2.) Proceedings are under section 20 of UPCH Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Which is in respect to adjustment of plot in the chaks of parties. The petitioner are the chak holder of chak No. 278 whereas the respondents are chak holders of chak No. 1024. Needless to say that in allotment of chak proceedings, both parties can never be satisfied in its entirety and therefore, the concern of the Court is to see that whether there is violation of provision of section 19 of UPCH Act and otherwise which party can be said to have suffered serious prejudice.
(3.) So far case in hand is concerned, the main dispute appears to be in respect to allotment of plot No. 976/2 which according to claim of parties, situates near/in front of their respective house. There is no dispute about the fact that plot No. 976/1 belonging to the petitioner has already been kept out of consolidation. So far plot No. 97/2 is concerned, at one stage in the proceeding under section 9-B of the Act, by order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.5.1995 that was also directed to be kept out of consolidation. On filing recall application by the opposite party, order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and thereafter, on filing appeal by the petitioners, subsequent order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside by the judgment dated 11.8.1999. Besides proceedings under section 9-B of the Act, matter also proceeded under section 20 of UPCH Act whereby being aggrieved by adjustment made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the judgment dated 25.2.1997, opposite party filed revision and at the same time, the opposite party also filed revision against the order dated 11.8.1999 and thus in respect to both proceedings, i.e. proceeding under section 9-B of the Act and in respect to section 20 of the Act, two revisions were filed by the opposite party which were decided by consolidating them by impugned judgment which is under challenge.;