Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri D.K. Tripathi for respondent Nos. 5 to 7.
(2.) The petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders passed during the proceedings for allotment of chaks. The objection of the petitioner filed before the Consolidation Officer was allowed by order dated 6 September 2013. Still the petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal, which was allowed by order dated 13 January 2014 in part. The petitioner carried the matter in revision, but the revision has been dismissed by order dated 20 September 2016.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Gata No. 1148 measuring 0.509 hectare was the original holding of the petitioner. It was also his largest holding and over which their exist a source of irrigation (boring). The petitioner has not been allotted any chak over Gata No. 1148, thus causing irreparable injury to him. The authorities have refused to consider the grievance raised in this regard on the sole ground that in case any alteration is made, it will result in allotment of a third chak to the petitioner, which is not warranted.;