Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who represents the respondent No.1.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No.1, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No.962 (Haridwar Vs. Parmatama and others).
(3.) The facts of the case as transpires from the pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and from the documents attached with the writ petition and the counter affidavit are that during the consolidation operations held under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner was allotted two chaks by the concerned Consolidation Officer. One chak consisted of plot Nos.102/1, 102/2, 102/3 and the other chak consisted of plot No.4/1, 5M and 10/4M. Both the chaks allotted to the petitioner consisted of his original holdings. Plot No.10/4 was also the original holding of the petitioner and the total area of plot No.10/4 was 1.466 hec. However, petitioner was allotted only 572 Are in plot No.10/4. The aforesaid facts are evident from CH Form 23 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The respondent No.3 was also a co-owner of plot No.10/4 and had 1/8 share in the same. During the consolidation operations, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.3 regarding the area to be allotted to each of them on plot No.10/4. Respondent No.3 was allotted three chaks and one of the said chak was 'udan chak' consisting of plot Nos.90M, 91M and 97/1. Respondent No.3 was allotted 033 Are in plot No.10/4 in a chak consisting of plot Nos.2M, 3M and 10/4M. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation praying for modification of chaks allotted to him for adding the area of udan chak allotted to him in plot No.10/4 but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.02.1999 passed by Assistant Settlement officer of Consolidation, District Gorakhpur. Against the aforesaid order the respondent No.3 filed Revision No.962 before respondent No.1. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation praying that the area allotted to him in plot No.10/4 be increased which was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order date 24.02.1999. Against the order dated 24.02.1999 the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No.1 which was numbered as Revision No.1017 and was dismissed by the respondent No.1 vide his judgment and order dated 30.03.2001. The memorandum of Revision has not been annexed with the writ petition but from a perusal of the judgment dated 30.03.2001 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision No.1017 it appears that the said revision was filed by the petitioner on the ground that chak allotted to the petitioner which includes plot No.10/4 has been carved in a manner that it deprives the petitioner of his source of irrigation and therefore, area of plot No.10/4 may be increased in his chak so as to include his source of irrigation. The respondent No.1 while dismissing the aforesaid revision No.1017 has recorded that the area of plot No.10/4 included in the chak allotted to the petitioner has been carved so as to include his source of irrigation and the petitioner has been allotted chak on his original holdings. On the same date, i.e., 30.03.2001 but through a separate order, the respondent No.1 allowed Revision No.962 instituted by respondent No.3 and modified the chaks allotted to respondent No.3 by increasing the area of plot No.10/4 by 237 Are in the chak allotted to him (in place of udan chak earlier allotted to him) and an equal area was reduced from the area in plot No.10/4 allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was allotted 237 Are in chak consisting of plot Nos.90, 91, 97/1. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.;