S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Notices were sent to contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and respondent No. 6 but they have not engaged any Counsel.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. An area of 0.21 acres of plot No. 318/1 was reserved for abadi against which respondent Nos. 2 to 5 raised the objection that only 0.06 acres must be reserved for abadi as that much would be sufficient for the said purpose. Copy of the objection dated 18.10.1973 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is not stated in the said objection that what loss was likely to be caused to the objectors by reserving more area for general abadi. It is not stated in the objection that plot No. 318 belonged to them. Consolidation Officer, Etawah where the case was registered as case No. 1211 dismissed the objections of the respondents through order dated 4.1.1974. Against the said order contesting respondents filed appeal being appeal No. 226 - Shyam Babu v. Gaon Sabha. Appeal was dismissed on 10.7.1974 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kanpur/Etawah. Against the said order respondents filed revision which was numbered as revision No. 92 - Shyam Babu v. Gaon Sabha. Revision was allowed through judgment and order dated 1.8.1975 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Camp Etawah. D.D.C. not only set aside the orders passed by C.O. and S.O.C. and reduced the area reserved for abadi from 0.21 acres to 0.06 acres but also allotted 0.15 acres of land of plot No. 318/1 (deducted area) to respondents 2 to 5. Contesting respondents had no business to meddle in the extent of area reserved for general abadi. It appears that contesting respondents were in unauthorised occupation of 0.15 acres area of the plot in question.
(3.) In any case there was not even the demand of the contesting respondents that the remaining/deducted area should be allotted to them. However, D.D.C. obliged them by allotting the said area to them.;