- (1.) S. P Srivastava, J The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 Ram Pher filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.-The revis ing authority, under the impugned order has, whole setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority in the matter relating. to the adjustments in the chaks of the petitioner and the contesting respondent No. 2, altered the chaks of the petitioner.
(2.) 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondent Ram Pher and have also care fully perused the record. In the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and objection had been filed by Ram Pher, the respondent No. 2 against the chak allotted to Pati Raj, Babu Lai, Mahavir and Rama Shankar praying that the first chak allotted to him on plots No. 10, 21 and 22 be allotted to the tenure-holders of the plot No. 25 and they be adjusted in plots No. 10,21 and 22. In the alternative it was prayed that any suitable order may be passed which may be found appropriate and the objector be allotted a single chak. The Consolidation Officer al lowed the aforesaid objection to a limited extent excluding from the chak of the ob jector some area of plots No. 21 and 22 and allotting the corresponding area from plot Nos. 42/1 and 30. It was found that the objector had been allotted two chaks which included his original holdings. It was also noticed that Pati Raj and others had been allotted a chak which included their plot No. 25 which constituted their only largest holding wherein a "well" was also situate which was a private source of irrigation. The Consolidation Officer found that the relief claimed by the objec tor for allotting a chak on plot No. 25 was not at all justified. However, so far as the alternative relief claimed by the objector was concerned the Consolidation Officer modified the chak allotted to the objector in the light of the prayer made by the objector himself and excluded plots No. 21 and 22 from his chak providing the land from other plots. Being dis-satisfied with the adjust ment granted by the Consolidation Officer in his chak, the objector Ram Pher preferred an appeal. The appeal was, how ever, dismissed upholding the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said order was thereafter challenged in revision which was disposed of vide the order impugned in the present case.
(3.) IN the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noticed that Ram Pher had requested for the allotment of a single chak over plots No. 30 and 42 which constituted his largest holdings. He has specifically noticed in the impugned order that the revisionist Ram Pher had prayed for allotment of a single chak over plot No. 30 etc. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion under the impugned order, ordered drastic changes in the chaks of various tenure-holders affecting the chak of the petitioner in such a manner that the total area of plot No. 25 which constituted the largest original holding of the petitioner was taken out from his chak and in its place he was allotted various portions of plots No. 10 and 22.;