Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Plot No. 1839 is a big plot. The petitioners' father has purchased a portion of about 3.00 acres of the said plot by a sale deed dated 21.11.1984. The sale deed recites that the portion purchased by the petitioners' father is towards the northeast near his existing chak. The respondent No. 4 Smt. Leelawati purchased about 9.00 acres of the said plot by a sale deed dated 28.7.1988. The sale deed recites that she has been sold the middle portion of about 9.00 acres. The respondent No. 5 has purchased south portion of the plot about 8.00 acres by a sale deed dated 25.8.1990. The respondent No. 6 Smt. Santosh Kumari purchased about 3.67 acres of the plot by a sale deed 24.8.1990. Her sale deed recites that the portion of the land remaining after the earlier sales is being sold to her.
(2.) In consequence of the purchases made by the parties reference proceedings were drawn and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 19.2.2002 allotted the chaks to the parties. The petitioners father filed objections before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 25.2.2003 did not accept the reference and remanded the matter for fresh allotment. It was directed that the reference will be prepared giving respect to the recital in the sale deed relating to the portion sold to the parties. It appears from the submissions that a fresh reference was thereafter prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation by making allotment of the chak of the parties in the manner that the northern portion of the plot No. 1839 has been allotted to Smt. Santosh Kumari respondent No. 6; the portion adjoining to the chak of Smt. Santosh Kumari has been allotted to the respondent No. 4. Smt. Leeawati also from east to west; the portion adjoining the chak of Smt. Leelawati has been allotted to respondent No. 5 Salik Ram and to the south east corner of the plot No. 1839 chak of the petitioners' father has been proposed. The reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 2.2.2005. This order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged by the petitioners.
(3.) I have heard Sri Suresh Chandra Verma learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeev Misra learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Sri S.K. Sri-vastava learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6.;