K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28th November, 1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultan. The Petitioner Sri Nath is chak holder No. 742. He was allotted two chalks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer of an area of 2 Bights 3 Biswas and 9 Biswansis as against his original holding measuring 1 blight 18 biswas and 10 biswansis. Aggrieved by this allotment, Petitioner filed objection Under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). This objection was partly allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.3.1985 and the Petitioner's chalks were altered. It appears that the Consolidation Officer had decided several other objections of tenure holders by said order and five of the tenure holders had preferred appeal against that order. These appeals were heard and disposed of by the Settlement Officer, consolidation and the chak of opposite -party No. 2 Hari Ram was altered while making adjustment in the chalks of the Appall ants. The opposite party No. 2 Hari Ram had thereupon preferred revision Under Section 48 of the Act. This revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 28.11.1985. The Petitioner was impleaded as a party in the revision. His chak has been altered while allowing the revision filed by opposite party No. 2 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner urged that by the impugned order the area of the Petitioner's allotted chak has been reduced by more than 25 percent than the land of his original holding and this has been done without prior approval of the Director of Consolidation. Learned Counsel, thus, contended that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19(1) of the Act, Learned Counsel had referred to the proviso to Section 19(1) which reads as follows: 19(1)(a).... (b).... Provided that, except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty -five percent, of the latter, ; According to the above quoted proviso, the land allotted to a tenure holder should not differ from the area of his original holding by more than twenty -five per cent except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation. In support of his contention learned Counsel cited a decision in Semai Lai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, 1985 LCD 354 wherein it was held that the allotment was invalid as the Consolidation Officer had allotted a chak of an area of 1 bight 7 biswas and 19 biswansis as against his original holding to 15 biswas 15 biswansis, which could not be done being vocative of the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. This decision is, however of no assistance to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the present case.
(3.) IN the above mentioned Somali Lai's case (supra) the Consolidation Officer had made allotment of chak having a difference of more than 25 per cent in area than the area of the original holding without obtaining permission of the Director of Consolidation as required under the aforesaid proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act.;