- (1.) HEARD Sri Shrinath Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. V.K. Rai for the contesting respondent.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is directed against the revisional order dated 31.01.1983. The petitioner is chak holder no. 300 while the respondent no. 2 is holder of chak no. 18.
(3.) IT has been submitted by Sri Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved by the chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer the petitioner preferred an objection which was allowed. Against this order no appeal was filed by the respondent. Certain other appeals arising out of separate and different objections were filed and by the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation whereby a number of appeals were heard and decided together affecting the chak of Jawahar Lal, respondent no. 2. Aggrieved by this order, Jawahar Lal preferred a revision on the ground that the first chak proposed to him on Plot nos. 1066. 1067 and 1068 be shifted on Plot nos. 1048, 1055 and 1056. This revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, this writ petition. When this petition came up for hearing on an earlier occasion the following order was passed on 15.05.2006: - "In this case on 30.03.2006 petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit giving number of plots and their areas, which were allotted, to petitioner as well as contesting respondents. It was also directed that the averments made in the supplementary affidavit should be substantiated by the copies of relevant documents. This direction was issued in view of the fact that this writ petition is directed against allotment of chak in order to properly and completely appreciates the controversy involved it was necessary to look into the said documents, On 17.04.2006 and 01.05.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner further sought time for complying with the order dated 30.03.2006. Today learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client is not responding hence supplementary affidavit cannot be filed. Learned counsel further requested that he might be heard without supplementary affidavit as required to be filed by order dated 30.03.2006. In my opinion, it is necessary to know the facts, which were required to be stated in the supplementary affidavit in order to decide the writ petition on merit. As the supplementary affidavit had not been filed hence I am not inclined to hear the writ petition on merit. Accordingly it is dismissed for want of prosecution.";