SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one has appeared for the respondents. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the case as evident from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are co-tenure holders of Plot Nos. 2340 to 2358 and Plot Nos. 2431 to 2438. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 along with one Bakhtawar Singh had 1/3 share each in the said plots. Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 are brothers. Consequently, the petitioner had 1/3 share in the aforesaid plots while respondent nos. 2, 3 and 8 had 1/9 share each in the aforesaid plots. The respondent no. 2 is chak holder No. 158, respondent no. 3 is chak holder No. 275 and the petitioner is chak holder No. 295. Till the stage of allotment of chaks by the Consolidation Officer, respondent nos. 2 and 3 were allotted one chak each on Plot Nos. 2434, 2435 & 2436 and one chak each on Plot Nos. 2352, 2353 & 2354 etc. Till the stage of Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was also allotted a chak on Plot No. 2354 etc. In Plot Nos. 2340-2358, the cumulative value of the share of respondent nos. 2 and 3 was 49 paisa. Not satisfied with the allotment of chaks till the stage of Consolidation Officer, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying that their chaks on Plot No. 2434 etc. be withdrawn and they be allotted a single chak on Plot No. 2352 etc. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 2.5.1990 disposed of the said appeals rejecting the claim of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that respondent nos. 2 and 3 had been allotted their share on the said plots and the second chak allotted to them on Plot No. 2434 etc. was also on their original holdings having irrigation facilities. However, vide order dated 2.5.1990 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Meerut, slight alterations were made in the chaks allotted to respondent nos. 2 and 3 on Plot No. 2434 etc. as a result of amendment of chaks of certain other persons. Aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.1990 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 37, the respondent no. 2 filed Revision No. 26 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Joint Director of Consolidation, Meerut, i.e., respondent no. 1. It is pertinent to note that respondent no. 3 did not appeal against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Joint Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 15.1.1991 allowed Revision No. 26 filed by respondent no. 2 and withdrew the chak of the petitioner allotted on Plot No. 2354 etc. and in lieu thereof allotted him two chaks on Plot No. 2434 etc. and Plot No. 2429 etc. withdrawing the same from chak holder Nos. 158 and 275, i.e., respondent nos. 2 and 3. The order dated 15.1.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 26 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that through the impugned order dated 15.1.1991, the petitioner has been deprived of a chak on his original holding, Plot No. 2354 etc., without assigning any reasons therefor and while passing the order dated 15.1.1991, the Joint Director of Consolidation has not considered the case of the petitioner. It was argued that for the aforesaid reason, the order dated 15.1.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 is contrary to law and is liable to be set-aside. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. ;