- (1.) SHITLA Pd. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9-7-1993 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and order dated 26-2-1993 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and also for issuance of a writ of man damus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Jangali and Har Nath and the learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that the writ petition may be finally heard as such, the writ petition has-been heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and respondent are co- sharers and the petitioner's share is 1/2. The petitioner originally held plot Nos. 213/1, 145/1, 212/2, 214, 215/ (. . . sic), 658/2, 658/3 and 658/1. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally the plot No. 658 belongs to t he petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 wherein the share of the petitioner is 1/2. As per the statement made in para 4 of the writ petition that the Assistant Consolida tion Officer proposed chak No. 187 to the petitioner at two places first at plot No. 145/2, second at plot No. 659/1, 600/1, 600/2,658/2,658/4,658/1,658/2 and 658/3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak in such a manner that the petitioner's tube-well was included in the chak of the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was completely deprived of his private source of irrigation and that chak was in L-Shape containing six aimers which was uncultivatable. This point was raised before the consolidation authorities but the Settle ment Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation did not con sider this point and as such, he has been put to great loss. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the chak which has been allotted to the petitioner is L-Shaped, which is unfit for cultivation.
(3.) IN paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is stated that the Assistant Consolida tion Officer proposed chak in such a man ner that petitioner's tube-well was in cluded in the chak of respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was completely deprived of private source of irrigation and that chak was in L-Shaped containing six corners which was un-cultivatable. This paragraph has been answered in the counter- affidavit by the contesting respondents in para 6 of the counter-affidavit, wherein ii is stated that there was no tube-well in operation merely the place of boring was there and including the original number in the plots, the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed the chaks to the parties and as such, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was completely deprived of private source of irrigation. IN para 4 of t he counter-affidavit it is stated that the answering respondents are Co-sharers and the answering respondents were satisfied, with the chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is also stated therein that in plot No. 658/3 there was tube-well but for the last more than seven years, no tube-well is working. In rejoinder-affidavit, these para graphs have been answered and the plea taken earlier in the writ petition and reiterated. There is no dispute that plot No. 658/3 came in the share of the petitioner in partition. Thus, from the nar ration of the facts in the writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder- affidavit, it is admitted to the parties that plot No, 658/3 belong to the petitioner. It is ad mitted that there was a boring in this plot. The dispute is I as to whether it was functioning or was in operation. Learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that it was not in functioning order.;