Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to allotment of chaks. According to the petitioner he has purchased plot No. 77/2. It appears that upto the stage of Consolidation Officer plot No. 77 was allotted to the petitioner. Two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation-one by respondent No. 3 Shiv Dutt and another by Dwarika respondent No. 4. Both the appeals were allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the chak of the petitioner was modified. The sansodhan talika of the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder affidavit. The said sansodhan talika indicates that portion of plot No. 77 has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and has been allotted to the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner was aggrieved by this modification and filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 27.8.1993 has dismissed the revision of the petitioner. The orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 8.3.1991 and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.8.1993 have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri M.R. Gupta Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.L. Pandey Counsel for respondent 3 and 4.
(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has disturbed the chak of the petitioner without considering what loss would be occasioned to the petitioner by the modification. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the finding in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that plot Nos. 74,75 and 77 were not the original numbers of the petitioner and he submits that the statement in the order that plot No. 77 is not the original number of the petitioner is incorrect and that the said plot belongs to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that plot No. 77/2 is the original number of the petitioner. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is a cryptic one. What loss would be occasioned to the petitioner has not been considered and the statement in his order that plot No. 77 is not the original number of the petitioner is not quite correct. It is conceded by the Counsel for the respondents that plot No. 77/2 is the original number of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is therefore required to consider the matter afresh. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner's largest original holding was on plot No. 77. The respondent's Counsel disputes this and submits that the petitioner's largest holding was on plot No. 82. These aspects have also not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In die circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.8.1993 is set aside and the case is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision in accordance with .law. Petition Allowed.;