DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA - (1.) Heard Sri R. P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ran Vijay Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4. These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have arisen out of the orders passed by the consolidation courts in the proceedings drawn for carvation of chaks under Sections 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) The Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing the provisional consolidation scheme had proposed three chaks to the petitioner. All three chaks proposed to the petitioner by the Assistant Consolidation Officer were given to him on his original holdings. However, an objection was filed by the petitioner that chak proposed to him on plot no.97 be given to the respondent no.4, who is his mother and he be given a chak on plot no.321. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 25.04.2017 has given a chak to the respondent no.4 on plot no.321 and the petitioner has been given his chak on plot no.97.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since plot nos.321 and 94 both were the original holdings of the petitioner as also the respondent no.4, as such chaks to both persons ought to have been given on both original holdings and that the Consolidation Officer has erred in law in giving chak to respondent no.4 exclusively on plot no.321 depriving the petitioner of his chak on the said plot. He has further stated that by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, area of chak given to the petitioner has been reduced.;