Rajesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.L. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.C. Kishan Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has original holding of plot Nos. 363, 312 and 198. Out of plot No. 198, petitioner has holding of 0.971 hectare and in the same plot, respondent No. 2 has also original holding of 0.971 hectare. Respondent No. 2 has subsequently purchased plot Nos. 113 and 109 which is far away from the petitioner's holding. In the consolidation proceeding, respondent No. 2 has claimed that the area of plot No. 198 belonging to the petitioner may be given to respondent No. 2 and plot Nos. 113 and 109 may be given to the petitioner. The claim of respondent No. 2 has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Against the said order, appeal was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which has been dismissed. Respondent No. 2 filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order accepted the claim of respondent No. 2.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has original holding of plot No. 198 which cannot be taken away and plot Nos. 113 and 109 were the purchased plots of respondent No. 2 which is far away from the original holding cannot be given to the petitioner. He submitted that the revisional authority has not considered the claim of the petitioner at all and passed unreasoned order and the revision of respondent No. 2 has been allowed. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 relied upon the impugned order.;