Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
(2.) During course of consolidation proceedings, the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks for the petitioner i.e. first chak over Gata Nos. 236 and 247 having valuation of 31.10 paise and second chak over plot Nos. 617, 618, 619, 620 621, 627, 628, 629 and 630 having valuation of 14.15 paise, total valuation 45.45 paise. The petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, praying that his second chak over plot Nos. 617 to 630 be abolished and it be merged with his first chak over plot Nos. 236 and 247. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections and abolished the second chak and allotted land of the same valuation to the petitioner in the vicinity of his first chak. As a result thereof, land of valuation 14.15 paise over plot Nos. 236M, 247M, 235M, 230M, and 234M were included in the first chak of the petitioner. The petitioner still aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) contending that the land of the plot Nos. 230, 234, 235 and 236 is of inferior quality inasmuch as, there are deep pits over the said land. He, therefore, prayed that the land of these plots be excluded and in its place the petitioner be given more land over Gata No. 247, which is also his original holding. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) rejected the objections of the petitioner by order dated 20 April 2016 holding that in case, any further land is given to the petitioner over Gata No. 247, it will adversely affect the adjoining tenure holders, especially chakholder No. 560. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 48 of the Act. By impugned order dated 14 September 2016, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging the orders passed by the authorities.
(3.) The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grievance of the petitioner that there were deep pits over the land of plot Nos. 230, 234, 235 and 236 has not been taken into consideration by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, thus, the impugned orders passed by them cannot be sustained.;