Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of Chak allotment proceedings. The petitioner's original number was plot No. 2/1. The petitioner was proposed allotment of an area about 5 bigha 10 biswas at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage which at the Consolidation Officer stage was reduced. The Settlement Officer Consolidation increased the area on the petitioner's Chak on plot No. 2/1 to three bigha ten biswa and reduced the area on plot No. 783, which was also allotted to the petitioner where he claims to have had only in share of 4 decimal. The petitioner was not satisfied by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He preferred a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation. Before the Deputy Director Consolidation the petitioner's demand was that his area on plot No. 2/1 be increased and the Chak on plot No. 783 be abolished. The Deputy Director Consolidation did not find any merit in this demand of the petitioner. He allowed the revision and modified the Chak of the petitioner by his order dated 24.11.1982.
(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that by the modification made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the Chak of the petitioner has been made worse and the petitioners area on plot No. 783 were had only four decimal of original share has been raised and the other change affected by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the larger part of the petitioners holding where he had his private source of irrigation has been reduced in violation of section 19(l)(f) of the Act. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 4 has been given an Udan Chak on the portion, which has been taken out of the petitioner's Chak by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Service has been found sufficient and none appeared to contest the writ petition and no counter affidavit has been filed. There appears to be some merit in the petitioner's contention that he Deputy Director Consolidation has not taken into account the aforesaid circumstances on account of which the petitioner claims to have been put to loss by (Sic). It is also true that if there was no merit in the petitioner's demand the revision could have been dismissed but the Chak could not have been made worse unless any other person had filed revision. As the question involves facts the Deputy Director Consolidation is required to look into the matter afresh. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.11.1982 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall try to dispose of the revision, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of certified copy of this order is filed before him. Petition allowed.;