SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner is chak holder No. 48 while respondent no. 3 is chak holder No. 209. Plot Nos. 265, 270 and 271 were the original holding of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the arrangement of chaks made till the stage of Consolidation Officer, one Ram Tirath filed Appeal No. 991 against respondent no. 3 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 28.9.1990. Till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner was allotted a chak which included Plot Nos. 268 and 269 and his original holding, i.e., Plot Nos. 265, 270 and 271. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.1990 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the respondent no. 3 filed Revision No. 221/50 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act 1953') before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp, Ghazipur, i.e., respondent no. 1 which has been allowed by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 16.3.1991. Vide his order dated 16.3.1991, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has withdrawn the chak allotted to the petitioner on Plot Nos. 265, 268, 269, 270 and 271 and allotted him a chak on Plot No. 366/1. The order dated 16.3.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order of respondent no. 1, the petitioner has been allotted two chaks even though the petitioner is a small tenure holder of about 1.5 acres and was, therefore, entitled to a single chak. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that Plot Nos. 265, 270 and 271 were the original holdings of the petitioner and therefore could not have been withdrawn from him while Plot No. 366/1 is not the original holding of the petitioner. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 16.3.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 is liable to be set- aside. Rebutting the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for respondent no. 3 has supported the order dated 16.3.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that Plot No. 366/1 is near Plot No. 323 which was also the original holding of the petitioner.;