LACHUA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dhananjay Kumar Rai appearing for contesting respondent No. 3.

(2.) This petition arises out of the proceeding of chak allotment. The petitioner filed objection under Sec. 21 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') that plot No. 215 over which his pucca Well is situate may be given in his chak. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.4.2000 allowed the said objection. Feeling aggrieved respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2002. Against which a revision was filed which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.12.2002.

(3.) It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and no claim was made by respondent No. 3 with regard to Well situate over plot No. 215. For the first time respondent No. 3 made a demand of the said plot in revision and the Revisional Court without assigning any reason has allowed the revision and disturbing the chak of the petitioner.