S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.8.2003 by which revision filed by the petitioners and their father -Ramdeo has been dismissed and revision filed by contesting respondent was allowed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate who appeared for respondents.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS are under section 20 of UPCH Act which relates to allotment of chak between the parties. Needless to say that both parties can never be satisfied. It is not possible to satisfy both parties in its entirely and therefore, the concern of this Court should be that whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice calling for interference or not. For disposal of matter, facts in brief may suffice as mention of other details may not have any relevance. Against the judgment of appellate authority, four revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. One revision was filed by petitioners and other by their father Ramdeo. Two other revisions were filed by the respondents. Petitioners' revision have been dismissed and the revision filed by Rama Kant, the contesting respondent was allowed and changes have been made in petitioners' chak and in the chak of their father.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners besides other grounds raised two main questions. Submission is that the area of petitioners has been reduced to more than 25% which is in violation of section 19 of UPCH Act. Other submission is that while dismissing revision of petitioners and their father, finding was recorded that they are not entitled to further relief as their chaks adjoining to each otherwise has been rightly carved out but while deciding revision of other sides, petitioners' chak has been affected and therefore, petitioners' position has been made more worst.;