JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, 2 and Sri Mannu Chowdhary learned counsel for the respondent no.5 i.e. Gaon Sabha.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court is proceeding to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondents.

3. Instant petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.1) in Revision No.33 preferred by petitioner and also order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexuure No.3) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (respondent no.2) in Appeal No.26 preferred by Moti Lal (respondent no.3).

4. Facts give rise to this petition is that in provisional consolidation scheme petitioner has been preferred chak no.149 at two places. First chak was proposed on two plots i.e. plot no.253/2 min area 0.497 hectare and plot no.258/2 min area 0.332 hectare. Second chak was proposed over plot no.345 etc., total seven plots. As per case of the petitioner he was fully satisfied with the proposed chak and was consented having the same without any objection.

5. On the other had contesting respondent no.3, Moti Lal has been proposed chak no.114 at two places. His first chak was proposed over plot no.380/59 etc. and second chak was proposed over plot nos.342 and 380/40 min.

6. Feeling aggrieved respondent no.3 has filed objection under Section 20(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity UPCH Act), qua placement of second chak and made prayer for shifting it over plot no.404 and 406, which are his original holdings. Objection as mentioned above filed by respondent no.3 was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 12.03.2019 (A-2), proposing him chak over plot no.404 min and 406 min in place of plot nos.380/62 and 380/59 from the first chak.

7. Being not satisfy, respondent no.3 has preferred appeal beseeching allotment of chak over plot nos.246/1 area 0.055 hectare and 246/2 area 0.684 hectare, including the area of embankment (Bandhi), which are his original holding, in place of his second chak which has been carved out over plot no.342/0.381 min and 380/40 min.

8. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.3, vide order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure no.3), shifting his second chak over plot no.346 etc, including the area of embankment which belongs to him. In this view of the matter plot no.342 area 0.381 hectare and plot no.380/4 area 0.152 hectare has been taken out from the chak of the respondent no.3 and in its place, he has been proposed chak over plot no.346/1 area 0.045 hectare, plot no.346/2 area 0.163 hect. and plot no.347 area 0.410 hectare.

9. It appears that due to the aforesaid adjustment made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the chak of respondent no.3, some prejudice caused to the petitioner who has, being aggrieved, filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, registered as revision no.33(Raja Ram Vs. Moti Lal) (Annexure no.4.). Revision filed by the petitioner was clubbed alongwith the other revisions filed on behalf of the co-villagers which have been decided vide common judgement and order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure no.5) passed by the Deputy Directory of Consolidation, which is under challenged before this Hon'ble Court.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Settlement officer of Consolidation has illegally interfered in the second chak of the petitioner, which consists of his original holdings i.e. plot no.346/1m 346/2 and 347 and has illegally carved out third chak over plot nos.377 and 378. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally affirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is further submitted that while dismissing the revision Deputy Directory of Consolidation has illegally