The Deputy Director of Consolidation is required to consider the grievances of the parties and apply the principles laid down in Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act while making the allotment of Chaks.

B.L. YADAV, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30-8-74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 20-3-72 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, in proceedings u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing these orders on the ground that his grievances about the adjustment of Chaks have not been considered either by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

2. I have heard the counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation being the last court of fact, has not considered the grievances of the Petitioner and his order is so cryptic that it does not contain any reason as to why the revision of the Petitioner was being dismissed. He further urged that by a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that he has disposed of the revision filed by Keshav Singh and just incidentally he has made a reference about the revision tiled by Bechan Singh, the present Petitioner. According to him the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. Sri A. Kathore, appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, urged that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly correct containing reasons and by his order it does appear that the grievances of both the parties have been heard.

3. In the instant case two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation; one by Keshav Singh (being Revision No. 815) and the other was filed by Bechan Singh, the present Petitioner (being Revision No. 789). The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has already allowed the appeal filed by Keshav Singh, Respondent No. 3 and consequently he has made changes in the Chaks of the Petitioner Bechan Singh. Bechan 'Singh, the Petitioner and Keshav Singh, Respondent No. 3 both filed revisions and both the revisions have been disposed of together. From the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that he has given cogent reasons for deciding the revision of Keshav Singh and according to him the revision filed by Keshav Singh is without any substance. The other revision filed by the Petitioner has bees disposed of just by making a casual observation that as the appeal filed by Keshav Singh was being allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, hence consequential changes in the Chak of the Petitioner became inevitable and, therefore some changes were made in his chak. The other reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the area of the Petitioners' plot was 13.25 acre, whereas after the allotment being made and appeal being decided, he has got an area of 13.43 acre and according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation the Petitioner has been given almost the similar nature of land as was contained in his original holding. But this is not justified.

4. I am of the view that the allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The principles are that every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding, and next is that the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him and that every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The area as held by any tenure holder prior to the start of consolidation proceedings are relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder varies by more than 25% or not as contained in the fir