Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri S.P. Singh learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav for respondent no. 11.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation Chandauli in appeal no. 68-299 (Satya Narayan v. Raghav) as well as the order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chandauli in revision no. 16/14 of 2013-14.
(3.) The petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer which was decided by order dated 23.5.2013. The position of the chak of the petitioner over gata no. 106 was altered. The second set of objection was filed by the third respondent for carving out a chak in his favour over gata no. 106. Respondent no. 3 is the real brother of the petitioner and both petitioner and the third respondent had 1/7 share in gata no. 106. The objection filed by the third respondent came to be rejected by order passed by Consolidation Officer on the same date. Aggrieved by the orders passed on 23.5.2013, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 filed two separate appeals, apart from other appeals filed by the other tenure holders. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner prayed that in lieu of his share in the holding of his mother Sarswati Devi chakdar no. 685, he be given a chak over gata no. 106, by merging with his existing chak over it. On the other hand, the third respondent in the appeal filed by him contended that he is entitled to a chak over gata no. 106 according to his share.;