NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ADMN GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.