The importance of following the guidelines provided in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, particularly Section 19, unless it is not possible to do so in a particular situation.

Anil Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Avadesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel as well as Sri Pankaj Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has has challenged the impugned order dated 27.05.1988 (Annexure No. 5) and order dated 02.11.1988 (Annexure No. 6) passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation.

3. Facts in brief of the present case are that when the village comes under the Consolidation Officer, objection under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been filed by the parties and by means of order dated 05.03.1987, Consolidation officer decided the said objections. Aggrieved by the same, Jagannath/respondent No. 2 filed an appeal No. 332 under Section 22(2) of the Act, by means of order dated 24.03.1988, the appeal was allowed. After the passing of the order dated 24.03.1988 as the original chak of the petitioner which is at plot No. 396 has not been given to him, so he filed a revision challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.03.1988.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the record as well as taking into consideration the fact that Jagannath has not been allotted the chak at his original plot No. 396 and the persons who have not got original chak at plot no. 396, the respondent No. 2 has been allotted original chak by means of order dated 27.05.1988 passed by respondent No. 1, thereafter on behalf of petitioner/Jamaluddin, an application has been moved for recall of the said order on the ground that he has not been heard. Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 02.11.1988 has rejected the application for recall giving finding therein that Jagannath who has field the application for recall does not want to take a chak at his original chak. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.1988 and 02.11.1988 passed by respondent No. 1 present writ petition has been filed.

5. Sri Avadesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that once the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed then he has no authority to challenge the appellate order dated 24.03.1988, so the order dated 27.05.1988 is bad.

6. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that he has not been given opportunity while passing the order dated 27.05.1988, so the order dated 27.05.1988 and 02.11.1988 are in violation of principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside.

7. Sri Pankaj Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents opposing the writ petition submits that as the petitioner has not given original chak at plot No. 396 whereas the original chak lies and his grievance has not been considered at the appellate stage, so even the appeal is allowed and he filed a revision and by means of order dated 27.05.1988, the respondent No. 4 has been given a chak at his original chak holding no. 396 thereafter the petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order and after hearing the parties concerned and going through the record, the Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 02.11.1988 rejected the recall application.

8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and going through the record.

9. In order to decide the controversy involved in the writ petition, it will be appropriate to see the intention of the legislature as provided under Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

10. The main thrust of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1952 is being summarized as under: -

(i) the land allotted to the tenure-holder should not differ from the area of the original holding by more than twenty-five percent.

(ii) every tenure-holder as far as possible be allotted to compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holdings

(iii) tenure-holder should not be allotted more than three chaks except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation

(iv) every tenure-holder as fa