RAJESHWAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 263. Original holdings of the petitioner are 306/2, 87/388, 9, 10, 11, 80, 87, 104, 287,293. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11 and second chak of plot Nos. 104, 105, 106. Contesting respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 69 and original holdings of respondent No. 3 are plot Nos. 306/2, 87/388, 9,10, 11, 80, 87, 104, 287, 293.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner allotting third chak to the petitioner at revisional stage. He further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed the order allotting the additional area to the petitioner on plot Nos. 9, 10, and 11 on the basis of the consent given by another co-sharer namely, Prem Pal, as such revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the allotment made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He further submitted that petitioner was proposed two chaks which was maintained even in appeal but revisional court has increased the petitioner's chak from two to three without any basis. He further submitted that while passing the revisional order, the comparative hardship of petitioner has not been examined in proper manner, as such, impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside.