S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.S. Pandey, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Bind, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) Proceedings are under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act, which relates to allotment of chak between the parties. Needless to say that both parties can never be satisfied and it is not possible to satisfy both parties in its entirety and therefore, the concern of the Court should be that whether petitioner has suffered any prejudice calling for interference or not.
(3.) So far as case in hand is concerned, submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that he has purchased small portion of plot No. 231/3 and at nearby place, petitioner has his own abadi and therefore, the Consolidation Officer after making spot inspection rightly proposed a chak giving reasonable amount land of plot Nos. 230, 231/2 and 231/3 etc. which was maintained by the appellate authority but the Deputy Director of Consolidation without meeting and reversing the findings given by two Courts below, just by taking into account the convenience of respondents' side allowed the revision and took away entire allotment on plot No. 230 and 231 etc. due to which, petitioner has suffered irreparable injury. Submission is that if the Consolidation Officer has recorded finding after making spot inspection, then it was obligatory on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have made spot inspection for being satisfied that no equitable adjustment between the parties has been done and as this has not been by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the impugned order needs interference.;