Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard A N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sadhu Saran appearing for contesting respondent No. 4.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings.
(3.) Petitioner Is chak holder No. 415 and he was proposed chak on his original plot No. 157. Similarly, contesting respondent No. 4 was proposed chak on his original plot No. 156. Aggrieved by the proposed allotment, respondent No. 5 filed an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was partly allowed and the chak of petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 was disturbed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal. Appeal was filed on the ground that Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed chak on his plot No. 156 where his Pumping Set, trees and Abadi exists. It was also stated that Pumping Set, trees and Abadi were not recorded in the record but Assistant Consolidation Officer had assured that his chak would be carved out on the said plot. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.1.2004 allowed the appeal on the ground that on spot inspection, it was found that tube well and trees etc. of respondent No. 4 exists on plot No. 156. Aggrieved by the appellate order, petitioner went up in revision. It was categorically pleaded in the revision that no spot inspection was carried out by Settlement Officer Consolidation and diesel pumping set has been installed during pendency of consolidation operation in order to claim undue advantage. It was also pleaded that he has been wrongly deprived of his valuable land of plot No. 157 and whereas un-fertile plot No. 156 belonging to respondent No. 4 has been allotted to him. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on the ground that if change as claimed by petitioner is made in the chak of parties, respondent No. 4 would be deprived of his private source of irrigation.;