- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Onkar Singh learned Counsel appearing for the respon dent No. 4.
(2.) BY this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4th July, 2007 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 4, Shiv Charan. The writ petition arises out of chak carvation proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner filed'objection under Section 20 (3) praying that he be allotted chak on plot No. 741 or alternatively the valuation of those plots which have been allotted to the petitioner be reduced from 70 paisa to 30 paisa. The Consolidation Officer vice order dated 27. 6. 2003 rejected the ob jection of the petitioner holding that plot No. 741 has been allotted to the cotenure holder of the petitioner. Another time barred objection was filed by the petitioner before Consolidation Officer praying that nali be provided in his chak No. 116, 726 from chak No. 653. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7. 7. 2005. The Consolidation Officer held that chaks have been amended at the appellate stage and the petitioner ought to have claimed relief from the appellate Court. The petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 7. 7. 2005 claiming allotment of nali along with chak road up to his chak. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal of the petitioner and provided the chak nali by affecting the chak of Shiv Charan. Shiv Charan, the respondent No. 4, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Con solidation which was allowed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that chak nali is already there on two sides of petitioner's chak No. 116 and 726. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order. On first day of hearing this Court passed the following order on 13th August, 2007 : "as prayed by Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, put upon 16th August, 2007 as fresh by which time, he shall file supplementary affidavit annexing therein the records which may go to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned judgment that the petitioner has been provided 'chak Nali' for irrigation of his chak from two sides are factually incorrect". The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit dated 21st August, 2007 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 13. 8. 2007.
(3.) SRI Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, submitted that the plot No. 741 has a tube-well and no area of plot No. 741 was allotted to the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that the finding of Depty Director of Consolidation that there is chak nali on two sides of chak of petitioner is incorrect. The petitioner has no source of irrigation since tube-well has been given to his brothers. Learned Counsel further submits that Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly given chak naii while allowing the appeal which order has been illegally set aside by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation. Sri Onkar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, refuting the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Settlement Officer Consolidation, without giving any reason, allowed the appeal of the peti tioner which has rightly been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is submitted that finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that chak nali is already there on two sides of petitioner's chak is based on material on record. In the map which has been filed by the petitioner himself chak nali is on both sides of chak No. 726.;