The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has no jurisdiction under Sec. 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to make alterations in the chak of the petitioners.

K.N. Misra, J.

1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed against the orders passed by the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 in the proceedings under Sec. 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 Ram Murat was allotted chak no. 254 and petitioner no. 2 Kalloo was allotted chak no. 37 as against their original holding. The opposite party no. 1 Mata Saran was allotted chak no. 207 and his father Ram Jiawan, opposite party no. 2, was allotted chak no. 265 as against their original holding. The allotment of chak was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sec. 23 (1) of the said Act and possession over the respective chaks was delivered to all the tenure-holders including the petitioners and opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 some 10 years ago and thus they were in cultivatory possession over their respective land. Petitioner No. 1 Ram Murat had constructed a well on his chak no. 254 for irrigating his land. The opposite party No. 1 Mata Saran moved an application before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) praying that the chak road be provided from the village abadi to his chak and that the petitioner no. 1 be estopped from making the construction of the well. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 19-12-1978 allowed the application of opposite party No. 1 under Sec. 42-A of the Act and provided chak road to the father of opposite party No. 2 Ram Jiawan who was allotted chak no. 265. Petitioner has filed chak map and its perusal indicates that by providing this chak-road to the chak of opposite party No. 2, the chaks of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 have been affected and as the chak-road has been provided on the land which was allotted to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. THIS chak-road has been carved out towards east of chak of petitioner no. 1 and it covers chak no. 37 of petitioner no. 2 on three sides. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his impugned order has mentioned that the parties are agreed to the proposed amendment in the chak and for providing of chak-road. He has also ordered that the chaks allotted to the petitioner and to opposite party No. 2 will be be reduced to the extent of the valuation which has gone in the chak-road they will be benefited by it. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed revision under Sec. 48 of the Act which was dismissed as not maintainable by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27th June, 1980. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders passed by opposite parties nos. 3 and 4.

2. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has no jurisdiction under Sec. 42-A of the Act to make alterations in the chak of the petitioners. He further urged that the application of the opposite party no. 1 Mata Saran was not maintainable as no chak-road could be provided to any individual tenure-holder under Sec. 42-A of the Act nor an individual tenure-holder can claim a chak-road for his benefit at the cost of the other tenure-holder. LEARNED counsel contended that by the impugned order passed by the opposite party no. 3 the petitioner's chak in village abadi has been reduced in the valuation as well as in the area and he has been materially affected as the well which the petitioner no. 1 has constructed would become unserviceable as the chak road which has been provided will run through paudhari of the well. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 contended that the opposite parties 3 and 4 in exercise of power under Sec. 42-A of the Act provided a chak road to the opposite party no. 2 on an application which has been filed by his son Mata Saran. I have carefully considered the aforesaid argument and I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. My attention