- (1.) SANJAY Misra, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 Sri K. P. S. Yadav learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5 and Sri Anuj Kumar learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7.
(2.) THE instant petition has been filed against the orders dated 12. 2. 2007, 23. 12. 2006 and 16. 6. 2005 passed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 16. 3. 2004 was passed for preparation of phats between the parties which was subsequently set aside on 29. 10. 2004 with a direction that all three share holders may be given their shares on the side of the road in equal width according to their share. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Lekhpal prepared deed dated 20. 1. 2005. THE petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 filed their objection. THE objection of the Bansh Bhushan Chaubey was rejected primarily on the ground that the portions allotted to him was sold by him and therefore, he had no right to file the said objection. In so far as the petitioner was concerned, the objection of the petitioner was in two parts, the first part was that the share allotted to Bansh Bhushan was in accordance with law and the objection of Bansh Bhushan was liable to be rejected and the second part was that the share allotted to the petitioner was on uneven land. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of family settlement he had been in possession of a particular portion of plot No. 81 and 87 and therefore, by virtue of family settlement he was entitled to the allotment of the portion in his possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 131 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules and contends that the plots which are in separate possession of the tenure holder shall as far as possible be allotted to such tenure holder. He contends that the portion upon which he was cultivating for more than twenty years by virtue of family settlement ought to have been allotted to him therefore, preparation of final decree by the Lekhpal was not correct. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the allotment made by the report dated 20. 1. 2005 was in accordance with law. Each of the parties have been allotted their share on the side of the road according to the width to which they are entitled as per their shares and uneven land has also fallen in the share of the respondents No. 4 & 5. In case there is to be allotment of uneven land between the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 & 5 then it would lead to a division of the said portion into three to four portions of that part of the plot which was not permissible under the law. He further contends that the Courts below have considered the feasibility of dividing the uneven portion amongst the parties and have recorded a categorical finding that it is not possible to further divide uneven portions of the plot in to three to four small portions.
(3.) HAVING considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders it is seen that the reason given by the Courts below is clear to the extent that it is not possible to further divide the uneven portion of the plot into three or four small portions. The said finding of facts are concurrent up to the stage of second appeal. No error can be found in the same. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .;