Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) In the basic year plot No. 36/1 Was recorded in the name of the petitioner Rama Kant. Objections under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the Gaon Sabha. the Consolidation Officer allotted plot No. 36/1 of the petitioner to the Gaon Sabha and instead the petitioner was allotted two chaks one on plot Nos. 290, 291 and 292 etc. and the second chak on plot No. 133. The Gaon Sabha never appealed against the order. The respondent No. 2 Subey Lal filed an appeal against the order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In his counter affidavit filed in this petition Subey Lal has alleged that he has filed objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is claiming title of plot No. 36/1 and that these objections are still pending. He claims to be in possession of plot No. 36/1 but his claim is disputed by the petitioner. Subey Lals appeal against the Consolidation Officer order was dismissed. Subey Lal filed a revision. The revision has been allowed and the chak of the petitioner has been modified in that plot No. 36/1 has been allotted back to the petitioner and his chak on plot No. 290 etc. and second chak on plot No. 133 has been abolished and has been given as bachat land to the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) I have herd Sri Manoj Kumar holding brief of Sri Satya Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(3.) The petitioner's Counsel has challenged the right of Subey Lal to file the appeal or revision as Subey Lal is not the tenure holder of any of the plots in dispute.;