- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sarvesh Kumar Shukla for respondent no.2.
(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi in Revision No.696 filed by the respondent no.2, challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 21.12.2011 in Appeal no.572.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were the tenure holders originally of Plot nos.32, 7, 41/1, 41/3 and half sharer in Plot no.41/2. The Assistant Consolidation Officer looking into the fact that the petitioners had small areas of land all over the place proposed two chaks to be given to the petitioners. The respondent no.2 filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer on 26.4.2011 against such proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The respondent no.2 in the aforesaid objection, clearly stated that he had been given chak over Plot nos.3 and 7 and the chak indicated over Plot no.7 was infested with termite, therefore, he may be given chak over his original Plot no.38. However, in case his original Plot no.38 could not be given to him, Plot nos.7 and 3 be increased in their valuation and then he would have no objection. The Consolidation Officer after considering the case of the petitioners as well as respondent no.2, by his order dated 31.5.2011, rejected such objections on the ground that on perusal of the map of the chaks proposed, it was found that the objector i.e. respondent no.2 had been given maximum area in his original Plot no.9-Minjumla and the demand now placed in the objection seemed unreasonable. The respondent no.2 thereafter filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal no.572 heard all the parties concerned, but rejected the appeal by a detailed order dated 21.12.2011, where in he observed that on perusal of map of the Village as proposed for allotment, it was found that the appellant had been given two chaks on Plot nos.9/2 and 3/1. The demand for exchange of Plot no.3/1 by Plot no.38 seemed unreasonable as chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer had taken into account the chak road proposed in between and the chak road was useful not only for other villagers, but for the appellant also, therefore, the chak proposed on Plot no.9/2 being separated only by chak road cannot be said to be creating much difficulty to the petitioners. Moreover, it was found that the appellant himself had agreed to such chak formation before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer thereafter. Against the order dated 21.12.2011, respondent no.2 filed a revision, which revision has been entertained and the respondent no.2 has been given chak over Plot no.38, which has resulted in prejudice being caused to the petitioners as now his area has lessened and also the number of chaks has been increased to three.;