Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.D. Khare learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ved Prakash Pathak appearing for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot No. 1930 situate in village Sirathu Pargana Kara, District Allahabad. The plot in dispute was entered in the name of respondent No. 3 and the valuation of the same was fixed at the rate of 2 Annas. The plot in dispute was in the shape of pond and was covered by the shadows of trees. Against the inclusion of the said plot in his chak respondent No. 3 filed an objection under section 20 of the Act which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.5.1977 and the plot in dispute came to be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. On 19.11.1981 respondent No. 3 filed an another objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act challenging the valuation of the plot in dispute. The Consolidation Officer treating the said objection under section 20 of the Act vide order dated 31.1.1982 allowed the same and took out the disputed plot from the chak of the petitioner and allotted the same in the chak of respondent No. 3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.1984 allowed the same, against which respondent went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 19.11.1984 allowed the same.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once chak allotment proceedings were finalized and the land in dispute came to be allotted in his chak, it was not open to the petitioner to file an objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act. It has further been urged that Consolidation Officer committed a grave illegality in treating the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act as one under section 20 and made changes in the chak of the parties. In reply it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent that land in dispute was the original holding situate near the road side and thus it was liable to be allotted in his chak. Reliance in support of his contention has been placed on two judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. D.C.C., 1997 (88) RD 649 and Chhedi Lal v. D.C.C., 2004 (96) RD 619.;