Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to allotment of chaks. The petitioner and the respondent Tilak are brothers. Each has a half share. The parties were tenants of certain plots, including plot No. 2283 etc. and plot No. 1441. Petitioner's case is that plot No. 2283 and other plots are 'Goyan' land used for vegetable cultivation. According to the petitioner plot No. 1441 is situated in the interior. It is the biggest number of the parties measuring 1.15 acres. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer had proposed allotment of two chaks to the petitioner-one on plot No. 1441 and the other on plot No. 2283 etc., that in on the 'goyan' land. The respondent Tilak was not given any portion of plot No. 1441 but he was given a chak on pot No. 2283 etc. The petitioner filed objections. The objections found favour with the Consolidation Officer who allotted two chaks to the petitioner as well as to the respondent Tilak. The area in Tilak's chak on plot No. 2283 etc. was reduced and he was given a chak in plot No. 1441 also. The petitioner's valuation in his chak on plot No. 2283 was correspondingly increased and that on plot No. 1441 reduced. Respondent Tilak filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed on 21.5.1990. 'Tilak preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who allowed the same by order dated 30.9.1992. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that Tilak Chak-holder 221 was not given a chak on plot Nos. 2283 and 2238 etc. He also found that in view of irrigation facility available Tilak's chak on plot No. 2283 ought to be restored as proposed at the Asstt. Consolidation Officer's stage to Tilak.
(2.) I have heard Sri Virendra Chaubey Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vazid Ali assisted by Sri A.K. Sinha Counsel for the respondent Tilak.
(3.) Sri Chaubey relied upon the Akar Patra C.H. 23 of Tilak and submitted at the stage of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation Tilak was allotted chaks on 'goyan' land on plot No. 2238 etc. also and statement of fact contained in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not correct. It is not disputed that the parties are brothers and are co-tenants of plot No. 1441 as well as of 2238 etc. 'goyan' land. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a cryptic finding without considering the petitioner's case that plot No. 1441 was the largest number of the parties and is situated in the interior and that the respondent Tilak ought to be given a portion of that plot also instead of allotting the whole of that plot to the petitioner and giving to Tilak a single chak on plot No. 2238 etc. which according to the petitioner is inferior land situated in the interior. As the D.D.C. has not considered this aspect his order is liable to be set aside. No opinion upon the point is being expressed by this Court as the matter is proposed to be sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision for considering this aspect also.;