Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) This two connected petitions arising out of chak allotment proceeding have been filed by two brothers challenging the same order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under :
(2.) Suraj Pal petitioner in Writ Petition No. 55720 of 2004 was proposed one chak on plot Nos. 236, 258, 278 and 1520. An objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed on the ground that he was allotted a 'uran' chak which was away from his 'abadi'. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.2.2003 allowed the objection and he was allotted one compact chak on his original holding comprising of plot Nos. 373/4, 315/2, 316, 317, 318 & 319. Similarly, other brother Krishna Pal petitioner of Writ Petition No. 8698 of 2005 was proposed 'uran' chak on plot Nos. 257, 256, 258 etc. He also filed an objection which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.4.2003. Appellate order was challenged by two brothers in revision on the ground that Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 held that by making proposed adjustments the petitioners would get their original holding but in the amendment chart petitioners have not been allotted chak on their original holding. It was claimed that first chak of Krishna Pal given by Settlement Officer Consolidation on plot Nos 278, 279, 280 may be abolished and instead he may be allotted chak on plot Nos. 317, 318, 319 etc. which are his original holding and adjacent to his residential house and his source of irrigation and first chak given to Suraj Pal by Settlement Officer Consolidation may also be demolished and valuation may be given in his second chak on plot No. 257 and if that was not possible, he may be allotted chak on plot Nos 280 and 319. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 19.11.2004 allowed the revision and made adjustment in the chak of two petitioners.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that though the revision filed by the petitioners has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the same has put them still in worse situation. It has further been urged that areas of petitioners holding have been reduced by more than 25% which is against the provision of section 19(i) of the Act and certain area of original plot Nos. 279 and 319 belonging to the petitioners has been illegally taken away for 'nali' whereas there was no claim in this regard.;