Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings in chak allotment. The parties are tenure-holders of village Gangnoli. The respondent No. 2 Brahm Singh filed objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objections were allowed and certain plots of Ranvir Singh petitioner were given in the chak of Brahm Singh. The petitioner as well as Brahm Singh filed separate appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation partly allowed the appeal of Ranvir Singh but dismissed that of Brahm Singh. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ranvir Singh the petitioner filed a restoration application Respondent No. 2 Brahm Singh on the other hand filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation against the order dismissing his appeal. The restoration application of Ranvir Singh was allowed but the revision filed by the respondent Brahm Singh was dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. Thereafter, Brahm Singh filed an application to recall the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation, which was dismissed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The order passed by the Deputy. Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision of Brahm Singh was not challenged in writ petition. In consequence of the petitioner's restoration application having been allowed the Settlement Officer Consolidation heard the appeal of the petitioner and allowed it by an order dated 14.12.1988. That order was challenged by Brahm Singh in revision. The Joint Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has allowed the revision of Brahm Singh. Two findings have been recorded by the Joint Director of Consolidation, firstly that the changes made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have resulted in the reduction of the original holding of Brahm Singh by about 11 percent and secondly that the 'Nali' proposed by the consolidation authorities is situated at a higher level than the plot of respondent No. 2 Brahm Singh on which there is a tube-well and therefore the water from the 'Nali' will waterlog the chak of the respondent No. 2.
(2.) I have heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Sri P.N. Misra Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.N. Verma learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Sri. H.M.B. Sinha Counsel for respondent No. 2.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by Sri G.N. Verma as to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that certain plots which have been allotted to respondent No. 2 are plots which were original plots of certain other tenure-holders, who have not been impleaded in the writ petition and consequently the writ petition cannot be heard as their chak may be affected. In my opinion this contention does not have any force. The Sansodhan Talika annexed with the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation indicates that whatever changes have been made by him in the revision are changes either in the chak of the petitioner or in the chak of the respondent No. 2. Consequently the tenure-holders to whom these plots may have originally belonged would have no grievance as they have not themselves filed any writ petition and it would not matter to them whether these plots are allotted in the chaks of the petitioner or that of the respondent No. 2. At this stage the tenure-holders to whom the plots may have originally belonged would not be affected. If tide case is remanded and the Deputy Director of Consolidation or other authority in consequence of the case being remanded to him wants to disturb any other tenure-holder he would have to issue notice to him.;