SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16594 of 1995 is taken on record. Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2.) Writ Petition No. 16594 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 16593 of 1995 have been filed against the same order and therefore both the writ petitions were connected and heard together and a common judgment is being passed deciding the said writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 16594 of 1995 is the leading case and the order passed in Writ Petition No. 16594 of 1995 shall also govern Writ Petition No. 16593 of 1995. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16594 of 1995 shall be referred as petitioners in the present order and the respondent nos. 3 to 7 in Writ Petition No. 16594 of 1995 shall be referred as respondents in the present order.
(3.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Plot No. 128. One Parmeshwra Devi was the co-tenure holder of the said plot along with respondents and had 1/2 share in the disputed plot. The aforesaid Parmeshwra Devi sold her share in the disputed plot to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that there was a partition of the disputed plot between the co-sharers and the different parts of the disputed plot were allotted sub-numbers and as a result of the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioners became sole tenure holders of Plot Nos. 128/1 and 128/3. A road divides Plot No. 128 into two parts and according to the petitioners, Plot Nos. 128/1 and 128/3 are adjacent to the said road. Plot No. 128/1 is on the northern side of the road while Plot No. 128/3 is on the southern side of the road. The respondents alleged that there was no partition of the disputed plot and no different numbers were allotted to the alleged sub-parts of Plot No. 128. In case, the allegations of the petitioners are true, then, Plot Nos. 128/1 and 128/3 are the original holding of the petitioners adjacent to road but in case the allegations of the petitioners are not true, the petitioners and respondents are co-tenure holders of Plot No. 128 entitled to equitable allotment of chaks on Plot No. 128 adjacent to road. In C.H. Form-2A, different sub-parts of Plot No. 128 were shown in possession of either the petitioners or the respondents. The petitioners were shown to be in possession of Plot Nos. 128/1 and 128/3 while the respondents were shown to be in possession of Plot No. 128/5. During the consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioners were allotted chaks on Plot Nos. 128/1 and 128/3 till the stage of Consolidation Officer. The respondents filed Appeal No. 77 under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') pleading that either Plot No. 128 be chucked out from the consolidation operations as it was adjacent to road and a commercially viable plot or respondents be allotted a chak on Plot No. 128 according to the valuation of their share in Plot No. 128. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 22.8.1994 allowed Appeal No. 77 and Plot No. 128 was chucked out from the consolidation operations. Consequently, the chaks allotted to the parties on Plot No. 128 were disturbed. Aggrieved, the petitioners as well as certain other tenure holders which also included the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16593 of 1995 filed different revisions before the Joint Director of Consolidation, District Basti, i.e., respondent no. 1 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 15.3.1995 re-arranged the chaks and allotted only one chak to the petitioners on the part which was marked as Plot No. 128/1 and also allotted the respondents a chak on Plot No. 128. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16593 of 1995 was also allotted a chak on Plot No. 128. The order dated 15.3.1995 has been challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 16594 of 1995 and 16593 of 1995.;