Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Bharath Ram (respondent no. 6), Sahdev and Mahangilal were original co-tenure holders of plot nos. 88 and 475. Petitioner is son of respondent no. 6. Before his death, Mahangilal executed a will in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the share of Mahangilal in the aforesaid plots devolved upon the petitioner. After the death of Sahdev, the share of Sahdev devolved upon respondent no. 5. Thus, the petitioner, respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 are co tenure holders of plot nos. 88 and 475. During the consolidation operation held under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1953'), chaks were allotted in the name of Mahangilal who was Chakdar No. 296. Evidently, the aforesaid chaks devolved on the petitioner.
(2.) Aggrieved by the arrangements made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 4 praying that he may be allotted chak along with his father i.e. respondent no. 6 and they may be jointly allotted a chak on plot no. 475 which includes the tube well allegedly installed by respondent no. 6 and exclusively belonging to respondent no. 6.?
(3.) The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 12.07.2017, dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that chak no. 296 allotted to Mahangilal, devolved on the petitioner and, therefore, there was no reason to alter the arrangement made by Assistant Consolidation Officer.;