NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Sen­ior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for op­posite party No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.9.2005, passed by the Dep­uty Director of Consolidation, Hardoi in revision No. 459, whereby the chaks allot­ted to the parties have been amended. After perusal of the documents brought on record, the facts of the case as emerged out are that at the stage of Con­solidation Officer they were allotted differ­ent chaks, but since they were not satisfied with the said allotments, different appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Some of them were allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and some of them were dismissed. The petitioner purchased some of the plots from Rai Singh and Ram Niwas, sons of Bhikham, who were co-sharers, as well as from the father of opposite parties 2 to 4. Al­though the opposite party No. 2 had not filed any appeal before the Settlement Offi­cer, Consolidation against allotment of chaks, but being aggrieved with the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, he filed a revision with the prayer for allotment of chaks on plot Nos. 268 and 269 as the plot No. 269 was not allotted to him, in the result of changes in the chaks. The Deputy Director of Consoli­dation allowed the revision and allotted plot Nos. 238 and 239 to the opposite party No. 2, although no claim was put forward for those gatas. Thus deprived the peti­tioner from of the source of irrigation.
(3.) THE petitioner claims that since she has purchased the plot from Rai Singh and Ram Niwas, sons of Bhikham Singh, who were co-sharers having 1/8 shares in Original Plot Nos. 237, 238, 239, 268 and 269, accordingly she is entitled to get a chak at least on one of the Original plots.;