Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sr: .N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned Counsel for contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
(2.) This petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding. Plot No. 140 which was recorded in the basic year as Navin Parti' was proposed to be allotted in the chak of the petitioner, against which an objection was filed by Gaon. Sabha. Another objection was filed by the contesting respondents claiming allotment of the said land in their chak. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.2.1997 allowed the objection filed by the contesting respondents and an area of 20 hectare was allotted in the chak of the petitioner whereas the remaining area was allotted in the chak of contesting respondents. Objection filed by the Gaon Sabha was rejected by the same order. Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal. Contesting respondents also filed an appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated both the appeals and decided them vide common order dated 21.12.1999. Appeal was filed by the petitioner on the ground that plot Nos. 147, 154, etc. allotted in his chak are not fit for cultivation and have been wrongly valued @ .80 paise. Contesting respondents had filed the appeal on the ground that some area of plot No. 140 has wrongly been allotted in the chak of the petitioner and they are entitled for allotment of the entire area. Settlement Officer Consolidation took out plot No: 147 from the chak of the petitioner and allotted him an area of .816 hectare of plot No. 140 after taking out the same from the chak of the contesting respondents. Aggrieved by the same contesting respondents went up in revision. Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 5.9.2002 allowed the revision and took out plot No. 140 from the chak of the petitioner and allotted entire area of the said plot in his chak and plot No. 147 was again allotted in the chak of the petitioner.
(3.) Settlement Officer Consolidation while deciding the appeal filed by both the parties had made equitable adjustment and plot No. 147 which was not fit for cultivation and highly valued was taken out from the chak of the petitioner. Deputy Director of Consolidation without adverting himself to the said fact again allotted plot No. 147 in his chak and took out plot No. 140. Plot No. 140 was neither his original holding nor of the contesting respondents as such both of them could not claim any preferential allotment of the said plot. Settlement Officer Consolidation while making adjustment in the chak of the contesting parties had made equitable adjustment which has been disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for no rhyme and reason as such the same cannot be sustained.;