S.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Advo­cate who appeared for the petitioner and Sri Chaudhary, learned Advocate who ap­peared for the respondent.
(2.) CHALLENGE is to the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that of the Settlement Officer Consoli­dation by which certain changes in the chak of the parties has been made. Proceedings are under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act which relates to the allot­ment of plots in the chak of the parties. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as on acceptance of claim of one side that is to cause discomfort to other, and therefore, this Court is to see that whether the last Court while adjusting the chak of the parties has considered the matter in accordance with law and whether there is any violation of section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that adjustment which was made by the Consolidation Officer was based on compromise/consent of the par­ties but the appellate authority without taking care of that aspect has illegally al­lowed the appeal on account of which peti­tioner has suffered serious prejudice and the Deputy Director of Consolidation with­out noticing the aforesaid has dismissed the revision. Submission is that on account of impugned adjustment allotment to the pe­titioner of plot No. 685 etc. by varying valuation and in respect to providing of chak road is not to the benefit of the peti­tioner and therefore, impugned judgment needs interference.;