Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 8. The writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. The dispute relates to plot no. 491. The petitioner and respondent no.4 are co-tenure holders of the said plot each having 1/2 share therein. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was proposed two chaks. However, plot no. 491 which is stated to be situated by the road side having commercial value was not included in the chak of the petitioner. The said plot was not proposed to be allotted in the chak of respondent no.4 the other co-tenure holder. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 both filed objections claiming allotment of the said plot in their chak. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.11.2000 dismissed the objection of the petitioner. The objection filed by respondent no.4 was also dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2000. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 both filed appeals. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 28.2.1001 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The appeal filed by respondent no.4 was allowed and certain adjustments were made. Still plot no. 491 was not allotted either in the chak of the petitioner or respondent no.4. Against the appellate order three revisions were filed. Two of them were filed by the petitioner and one by respondent no.4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 7.5.2003 partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and respondent no.4 and again made certain adjustment in their chak. However, the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 for allotment of plot no. 491 in their chak was not allowed.
(2.) It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that plot no. 491 which was the original holding of the petitioner situate adjacent to the public road has not been allotted to the petitioner or even to the co-tenure holder respondent no.4 wrongly and illegally. It is further stated that the said plot being of commercial value having irrigation facility from lift canal ought to have been allotted in the chak of the petitioner.
(3.) In reply it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that all the three courts have not allowed the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot no. 491 and the said judgments do not call for any interference by this court. It has further been contended that the appeal as well as the revision filed by the petitioner was allowed and his chak was readjusted and thus there is no grievance left.;