S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.10.1991 by which tire revision filed by the petitioner is said to be allowed but the petitioner being dissatisfied with the expression of the revision being allowed has come to this Court.
(2.) Parties Counsel have been heard. Proceedings are under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act which is in respect to the ad-justment of plots in the chak of the parties. So far the case in hand is concerned it is said that the proceedings cannot be treated to be under section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, as there was simple objection of the petitioner to remove nali which was provided to the respondent through the petitioner's chak. Be as it may, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and on filing revision it was said to be allowed but on the grounds and submissions as placed that is under challenge.
(3.) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the main grievance of the petitioner as noted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was for removal of the nali which was provided to the opposite party through the petitioner's chak for the reason that on account of release of the water crops of the petitioner was to be damaged. Submission is that when the Deputy Director of Consolidation has found the ground of the petitioner to be justified, simply that was to be removed from the petitioner's chak, which appears to have been done as the direction of the Nali from East-West has been made to North-South but at the same time further exercise of making some further change in the plots which stood confirmed in the petitioner's chak, up to the revisional stage, on the pretext that there being a tank of the opposite party in the chak of the petitioner and on that ground taking out of the land from the petitioner's chak to be allotted to the respondents and the placement of the petitioner over plot No. 52 in respect of small portion has caused serious prejudice and in fact on account of that exercise the number of chak. of the petitioner who is a lady has been increased for which there cannot be any justification. Submission is that in the light of the adjustment as made, it was obligatory on the part of the Revisional Court to have made spot inspection to find the truth in the pleas of either side and, therefore, argument is that matter needs fresh exercise by the Revisional Court.;