JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this Court proceeds to decide this matter finally at admission stage.

3. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

4. Instant writ petition is arising out of Chak allotment proceeding under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without adhering to the grievance of the petitioners that they are entitled for larger area over plot No. 46/1 which is their original holding.

5. Facts culled out from the averments as made in the writ petition are that in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, Prahalad (petitioner no. 1) has been proposed Chak No. 234, Nepal (petitioner no. 2) has been proposed Chak No. 217 and Kusma Devi (respondent no. 4) has been proposed Chak No. 29. Respondent No. 4 has filed objection under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act alleging therein that plot No. 46/1 is her original holding, consists of area 0.090 hectare, however, she has illegally been proposed only 0.007 hectare over there and has illegally been allotted Udan Chak over plot No. 40 area 0.079 hectare. Considering the pleadings of the parties Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 03.03.2022, has allotted the plot No. 46/1 area 0.086 hectare to the respondent No. 4 and, accordingly, Chak of both the petitioners were modified. Having been aggrieved, petitioners preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation being Appeal No. 453 (Prahalad Vs. Kusma Devi) and Appeal No. 452 (Nepal Vs. Kusma Devi). Both appeals were clubbed and allowed by common order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation reversing the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of Kusma Devi (respondent no. 4), has allowed the revision and reversed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation affirming the order of Consolidation Officer. Having been aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, instant petition has been filed by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the original tenure holders of plot No. 46/1 and have their own source of irrigation over there, therefore, they are entitled for the larger area of plot No. 46/1. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly allowed the appeal considering the claim of the petitioners with respect to the source of irrigation. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision without properly appreciating the evidence on record and without considering the fact that plot No. 46/1 is their original holding. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularities, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4 has contended that the respondent No. 4 had two original holdings i.e. plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.260 hectare and plot No. 46/1 measuring area 0.53 hectare, however, Assistant Consolidation Officer has illegaly proposed Udan Chak over plot No. 40 and given meagre area measuring about 0.007 hectare over plot No. 46/1 which amounts depriving the petitioner from his original holding. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer has rightly allowed the objection considering the original holding of the respondent No. 4 and allotted Chak over plot