Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to the allotment of chak. The bone of contention in this case is part of plot No. 305. Plot No. 305 was tine original number of one Bihari. It appears that at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer a proposal for allotment of three biswas on plot No. 305 was made in favour of Nasar Ulla and others and three biswas of the same plot was also proposed for allotment in favour of petitioner. Bihari filed objections under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that this plot was his regional number and that the same may be allotted to him. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Bihari in that three biswas which were proposed for allotment to Nasar Ulla and others were taken out but the petitioner's chak on plot No. 305 was not disturbed. Against this order Nasar Ulla and others filed appeal, which was dismissed. Bihari did not file any appeal. Nasar Ulla and others filed a revision. In that revision the petitioner was also impleaded as respondent. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of Nasar Ulla and others by order dated 5.12.1986. By the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has declared three biswas of land on plot No. 305, which was allotted to the petitioner as Khalihan and the petitioner has been given certain plots belonging to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and a portion of chak road. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard S/Sri Shahid Masood and Ashok Kumar Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh Counsel for Gaon Sabha.
(3.) It is submitted by the petitioners' Counsel that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in taking out the portion of plot No. 305 allotted to him and declaring it as Khalihan when there was no revision filed by Gaon Sabha nor any claim has been made by any party that plot No. 305 be declared as Khalihan. It is also submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of Nasar Ulla but no relief has been granted to Nasar Ulla and others as no modification of chak of Nasar Ulla and others has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the recital in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation that there was compromise between Bihari who was original tenure holder of plot No. 305 and the petitioner whereby Bihari had agreed not to disturb the petitioner from plot No. 305. There appears to be merit in the petitioner's contention. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision but there is nothing to indicate in the order that any modification has been in the chak of Nasar Ulla and others who had filed the revision but modification has been made in respect of Gaon Sabha plot and the plot of petitioner and that of apposite party Nos. 2 and 3. There is also nothing in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation to indicate that there was any demand for declaring the plot No. 305 as Khalihan. Sri V.K. Singh Counsel for Gaon Sabha however, submitted that there was no Khalihan in the village and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly taken out portion of plot No. 305 which was allotted to the petitioner and declared it as Khalihan. He has also drawn my attention to the averment made in para 4 of the counter affidavit that plot No. 305 was being used as Khalihan for the past several years. However there is nothing in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to substantiate the argument of Sri V.K. Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered these aspects. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.12.1989 is set aside and the case is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision. Petition Allowed.;