ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the peti­tioner, Sri B. Malik, who has appeared for the private respondents and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BOTH the writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of Deputy Di­rector of Consolidation dated 20.2.2008 and the order dated 28.12.2004 passed by Set­tlement Officer of Consolidation. Both the writ petitions arise out of proceedings un­der section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In writ petition No. 14695 of 2008 supplementary and short counter affidavits have been filed by the parties and it is sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in writ petition No. 14713 of 2008 for deciding both the writ petitions. The petitioner Khilari was allotted chak No. 303 over plot Nos. 1068, 1069, 1071, 1070 and 1111. The respondent No. 3 Jaggu was allotted chak No. 441 and re­spondent No. 4 was allotted chak No. 440. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 purchased plot No. 2584 to the extent of 1/3 share. Chak No. 877 was allotted to the respon­dents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 with regard to plot Nos. 2583, 2584, 2590, 2591. Another sale deed was taken by the respondent No. 3 and 4 with regard to l/1 share in plot No. 2269, 2271 and 2273 of chak No. 93. The objection before the Consolidation Officer was filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 for adjustment of their 1/2 share on the plot Nos. 2269, 2271 and 2273. The Con­solidation Officer rejected the objection by the order dated 13.3.2003. The prayer of petitioners for adjustment of valuation of their chak was rejected, however, the ob­jection was partly allowed by giving chak of bachat land of plot No. 2268 and 2269. The appeal was filed by the respondents against the said order which was allowed by the order dated 28.12.2004. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said or­der was dismissed on 20th February, 2008.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that objection of the petitioner was with regard to adjustment of plot pur­chased from chak No. 73, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation exceeded his ju­risdiction in directing adjustment of chak No. 877. He further contends that by order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation peti­tioner Khilari was given plot No. 1128 which was a bachat land whereas said bachat land was subsequently deleted and is not available for allotment.;