Point of Law: Allotment of Chaks - Consolidation authorities - Section 19 only provides relates to allotment to a tenure holder of chak upon the land to which he has already made some improvements, requires authorities to allot to a tenure holdder chak over largest part of his holding.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. I have heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh Vats for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Singh Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 11.10.2019 and also the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidtaion dated 16.11.2019 and the rejection of his Revision by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, by order dated 08.01.2020.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was given two Chaks, one over Gata number 8Min, admeasuring 1.439 ha, and the other over Gata number 138Min along with 139 Min and 141 Min, admeasuring 1.337 ha. The petitioner's Chak over Gata number 8 Min was over his original holding but it was at a distance of about 3 km from the village therefore the petitioner moved an objection before the Consolidation Officer, Biswa, praying that his chak should be carved over Gata numbers 155 and 156, which were marked as Bachat land belonging to Gaon Sabha instead of over Gata number 8 Min. The land situated in Gata number 155 in 156 was in the vicinity of his house and of the village and it would lead to facilitating cultivation in a better manner in comparison to carrying out agricultural activities over land which was situated at a distance from the village as the petitioner intended to farm vegetables which required constant attention.

3. The demand made by the petitioner for conversion of his Chak over Gata number 155 in 156 was refused by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the petitioner already had two chaks and giving him a Chak over Gata numbers 155 and 156 would mean that he would have three Chaks in the village, and also because Gata number 155 and 156 were not part of his original holding, and therefore carving out a Chak over them for him would mean allotment of an Udaan chak.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Bachat land being that of the Gram Sabha and there being no objections from the Gram Sabha, his request ought to have been allowed by the Consolidation Officer. It has been further argued that the grounds taken by the Consolidation Officer for rejection of his objections are against the statutory provisions given under section 19 (1) (e) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

5. It has been submitted that a perusal of section 19 (1)e of the Act would show that the proviso to the same makes it permissible to allot three Chaks. Also, it provides for allotment of Chak at a place where the tenure holder has the largest part of his holding “as far as possible“. The basic reason for providing Chak over original holding is to save the interest of the tenure holder and such tenure holder has every right to forego such a privilege. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the phrase “as far as possible” only envisages convenience of the tenure holder. Also Section 19(1)(e) does not prohibit allotment of Udaan Chak or three Chaks to a tenure holder. More so, there was no objection by the Gram Sabha in whose name the Bachat land was recorded.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Settlement Officer Consolidtaion but by the order dated 16.11.2019 his Appeal has been rejected on the same grounds as taken by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner approached the D.D.C. in Revision but the same has also been rejected, this time taking different grounds altogether.

7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the purpose of the Act is to facilitate a tenure holder in order to undertake better cultivation and the request for allotment of the said Gata numbers 155 and 156 was rejected only on the ground that it would lead to three Chaks being allotted to the petitioner which amounted to arbitrary exercise of power