Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) In spite of service of notice, con testing respondent No. 3 has not put in appearance.
(3.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. During provisional consolidation scheme, the petitioner and contesting respondent No. 3 who are brothers were proposed chak on their original holding. The petitioner was proposed two chaks whereas the respondent No. 3 was proposed only one chak. Not satisfied with the proposed allotment, respondent No. 3 filed an objection. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.3.1995 made alteration in his chak, Plot Nos. 4197, 4193, 4194, 4222 and 4195 were taken out and in place Plot Nos. 4200,4406, 4205 and 4206 were allotted in his chak. Not satisfied with the changes affected in his chak by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 3 went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 30.12.2000 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 and drastically affected the chak allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;