- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling ag grieved by the order passed by the Assis tant Director, Consolidation in the proceedings relating to the allotment of chaks whereunder the chaks aligned to the petitioner and his brother Dhoom Singh, the respondent No. 4 and that of the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19061 of 1985 had been affected, Brij Pal Singh has filed Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 15532 of 1985, an Daya Ram has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19061 of 1985.
(2.) DURING the pendency of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15532 of 1985, the inte rim order granted in that case was modified which led to fresh proceedings giving rise to the writ petition No. 32270 of 1994 filed by Dhoom Singh which is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-8-1994 directing that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of posses sion till the final disposal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15532 of 1985. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the respondents had produced the C. H. Form 5 issued by the Consolida tion authorities in respect of the original holdings of Brijpal Singh and Dhoom Singh which showed that they were co-tenure-holders having l/6th share therein. A certified copy of the chak map showing the demarcation of the chaks allotted to Brijpal Singh, Dhoom Singh and Daya Ram under the orders of the Settlement Officers, Consolidation as modified vide the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was also produced. The petitioner and Dhoom Singh as noticed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation do not fall in the category of small tenure-holders considering the extent of their holdings. However, Daya Ram does fall in that category. The demarcation of the chaks as ordered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that so far as the chaks in dispute are concerned they are compact.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Brijpal Singh has strenuously urged that the impugned allotment is vitiated as the Deputy Director of Con solidation has not taken into considera tion his private source of irrigation, while altering the chak. The contention is that this petitioner was deprived of the benefit envisaged under Section 19 (l) (f) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which requires that every tenure-holder is as far as possible, allotted the plot on which ex ists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him there. Learned Counsel for the contest ing respondent has, however, urged that the aforesaid provision had been taken into account and its benefit duly provided to the petitioner as the second chak al lotted to him satisfies the requirements of the law.;