The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 19(1)(e) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are directory in nature and the Consolidation Authorities are under obligation to allot chaks considering the convenience of the tenure holder and to ensure that they will not be put to great hardship.

Sunita Agarwal, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The order impugned in the present writ petition are the orders dated 18.2.2009, 20.8.2009 and 27.11.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Siddharth Nagar; respectively.

3. The petitioners are chak holder no. 424. It appears that an objection was raised by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer that the valuation of ten rupees from their first chak in plot nos. 938 and 941 be expunged and the said valuation be added in another chak comprising of Gata Nos. 705, 706 and 708 and the rest of the valuation be adjusted in a new chak in Gata No. 951. The said request of the petitioners was not acceded to on the ground that other chak holders would be disturbed. It appears that an Appeal No. 314 was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Consolidation Officer finalising the provisional consolidation scheme on the ground that his chak prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was disturbed by the Consolidation Officer though the petitioners did not file any objection. It is contended in the memo of appeal that under the scheme prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the chaks were provided to him on their original holdings and as such the petitioners did not plead for any change. The respondents, on the other hand, got certain plots of original holdings of the petitioners as 'Udan chak'. On account of alteration made by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners got a chak at a much distance beyond the sector in which their other chaks are situated.

4. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 20.8.2009 with the categorical finding that the appellant namely petitioners were provided three chaks. First chak in Gata No. 706 etc., second chak in Gata Nos. 926, 934 etc. and third chak in Gata No. 1184 etc. All these plots are of original holdings of the petitioners. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners to provide chak in plot nos. 51 and 53 i.e. at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, it was recorded by the appellate court that the said chak was provided to other co-tenure holders on the objections raised by them.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioners went up in revision. In the memo of revision, it was stated that second chak of the petitioners in plot nos. 918, 919 is on 'Taal and 'Khalaar' land and their share in the said land was much less than what has been given to them. They again requested to give a chak in plot no. 53 by taking out the excess portion of plot nos. 918 and 919 (which was much more than their share in the said lands).

6. The revision was rejected with the categorical finding recorded therein that in plot no. 705M. etc., area 0.211 hectares (valuation 14.79 paise), second chak in plot nos. 926, 934 etc. area 0.835 hectares (valuation 33.40 paise) and third chak in Gata No. 1184 etc. area 0.122 hectares (valuation 8.02 paise), fourth chak in Gata No. 1184M. area 0.439 hectares (valuation 26.66 paise) i.e. total area of 1.607 hectares having valuation of 82.87 paise was given to the petitioners in four chaks whereas the total valuation of their original holdings was 1.566 hectares. It was further recorded that other chak holders who are the co-tenure holders of the petitioners were also provided chaks comprising of their original holdings. In case, plot no. 53 is given to them by reducing area of plot nos. 918, 919, the petitioners would be having a fifth chak.

7. The orders impugned are under challenge in the present writ petition with the specific assertion by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the consolidation authorities had committed grave error of law in rejecting the appeal and revision filed by him on the grounds which were alien to the objections raised by him. Plot no. 53 was the only cultivable land among