- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent.
(2.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings of allotment of Chaks and is directed against the order dated 23.06.1999 passed by respondent no. 1, Joint Director of Consolidation, Rai Bareilly Camp at Fatehpur. It appears that petitioner, holder of Chak Nos. 104, 124 and 8-Ka, petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") claiming Chak on plot no. 202 adjacent to that his brother. This objection is stated to have been allowed on 04.08.1997. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the respondent no. 2 which was allowed but the Chak allotted to the petitioner was not modified. Still not satisfied, the respondent no. 2 file a revision which has been allowed in part.
(3.) The basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his three Chaks are no longer adjacent to one another as they were prior to the passing of the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that although Chak holder nos. 104, 124 and 8-Ka is one of the same person, yet three separate Chaks have been carried out in his name. He has further recorded that the petitioner is the original holder of plot no. 126. He has, therefore, allowed the revision by shifting the petitioner to plot no. 126 from a perusal of this order, it is clear that the petitioner has been shifted to his original holder and also the three Chaks which are in the name of the petitioner have been shifted to this very same plot no. 126. It, therefore, cannot be said, that on account of the impugned order, the petitioner's three Chaks are separate from one another. Even otherwise, it is not the petitioner's case that plot no. 126 to which he had been shifted is not his original holding. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner despite a pointed query could not explain as to why a single tenure holder had been proposed three Chaks namely Chak Nos. 104, 124 and 8-Ka. The impugned order therefore, suffers from no illegality, warrantary interference. While reserving the judgment on 17.11.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to furnish a written argument by 23.11.2015, but no written argument has been filed.;