The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering original demands, adjusting equity between the parties, and ensuring that a person should not be deprived of their original holdings causing material prejudice to them in chak allotment matters.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Girija Shankar Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri G.C. Yadav, holding brief of Sri P.P. Chaudhary, for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Plots 1614/10 (area 0-5-18 bigha), 2061/2 (area 0-2-7 bigha), 2171/2 (area 0-3-17 bigha) and 2173 (area 1-0-3 bigha) (total area 1-12-5 bigha) were original holdings of the petitioners. The petitioners (chak-1122) were proposed two chaks i.e. first chak was proposed on plot 1517/3 (area 0-11-13 bigha) and second chak was proposed on plots 2380, 2381, 2382, 2405, 2429 and 2433 (total area 0-12-3 bigha). According to the petitioners, their plot 1614/10 was a roadside land but it has been reserved for school. In order to compensate the petitioners, they were allotted their first chak on plot 1517/3 (area 0-11-13 bigha).

3. Sharejang (now represented by respondents-4 and 5) (chak 3225) was proposed first chak on his original holdings of plot 8950 etc. of total area of 6-11-4 bigha (total valuation 45.58 annas. He was proposed his second chak on 1517 etc. of total area 2-5-6 bigha (total valuation of 20.54 annas). Sharejang filed an objection under section 20 of the Act, claiming for change in his second chak and for allotment of its valuation near his original holdings of plot 8950 and remaining valuation on his original holding of plot 1518. It may be mentioned that plot 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) was original holdings of Sharejang. Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.05.1973 allowed the objection of Sharejang due to which chak of the petitioners on plot 1517/3 (area 0-11-13 bigha) was taken away and its valuation was allotted on plots 1640, 1634, 1635, 1636 (total area 0-12-7 bigha). Sharejang was allotted his second chak on plots 1517/3,1635 and 1636 of total area 1-12-8 bigha and remaining valuation was allotted on plots 8950 etc., on his original holdings according to his demand, which was added in his first chak.

4. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1175) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 20.6.1973 found that as roadside land having commercial value of the petitioners was reserved for school purposes as such he was rightly proposed his second chak on plot 1517/3, which was a roadside land but Consolidation Officer has illegally disturbed his first chak. On these findings the appeal was partly allowed and first chak of the petitioners was shifted on plots 1517/3 (area 0-3-6 bigha), 1636 (area (0-4-15 bigha and 1637 (area 0-4-10 bigha) (total 0-13-11 bigha).

5. Sharejang filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1215) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 15.12.1982, held that plot 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) was original holdings of Sharejang as such Consolidation Officer rightly allotted chak to him on plot 1517/3, which was in the vicinity of his original holdings. The petitioners were allotted an uran chak on plot 1517/3 but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally restored the uran chak of the petitioners. On these findings he allowed the revision. Amendment chart attached to the order dated 15.12.1982 was corrected by order dated 5.1.1983, in which the petitioners have been allotted chak on plots 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1355 and 1767 (total area 1-11-12 bigha). Thereafter it was again corrected on 11.11.1983 and the petitioners was again shifted on plots 8945, 8946, 8950, 8952, 14378 and 15077 (total area 1-14-0 bigha), on the original holdings of Sharejang.

6. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2427 of 1984, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 11.11.2005 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 15.12.1982 as corrected on 11.11.1983 was set aside