IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri .K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Yadav as well as Sri .M. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Chak Holder of Chak No. 799 & 800. Respondent No. 5 is Chak Holder No. 65. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed single Chak to the petitioner on plot nos. 489M, 496M, 505M. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer the Chak Objection was filed by petitioner, which was decided by Consolidation Officer ide order dated 11.02.2020 allotting the Plot No. 496, in which his source of irrigation is situated along with the Plot No. 505. Petitioner was also allotted Plot No. 500, 499 under the order of Consolidation Officer dated 11.02.2020. Against the order of Consolidation Officer petitioner filed Chak Appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation claiming that he should be allotted Chak over plot nos. 536 & 539 in place of plot nos. 499 & 500. The aforementioned appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed ide order dated 23.12.2020. Petitioner challenged the appellate order by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation ide order dated 15.09.2022. Hence, this writ-petition for following reliefs:-

"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 4 in so far it relates to Chak no. 800, order dated 23.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 40 of 2020, under section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 15.9.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 175/2021530126000033, under section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act.

II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders and direct the parties to maintain status quo on spot.

III) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

IV) To award the cost of writ petition."

3. This Court entertained the matter and granted interim order on 01.12.2022. In pursuance of the order dated 01.12.2022 pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chak Appeal filed by petitioner against the illegal order of Chak allotment passed by Consolidation Officer has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the demand of the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation has not considered the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act in proper manner and dismissed the appeal in arbitrary manner. He next submitted that the revision filed against the appellate order has also been dismissed illegally under the impugned order. He further submitted that the shop of the Chak allotted to the petitioner under the impugned order has been become 'L' shape, which is not fit for cultivation. He further submitted that in the impugned orders, it is wrongly mentioned that the Chak, which has been allotted to the petitioner by Consolidation Officer is rectangular in shape. He placed the 'Chak Map' of the illage in order to demonstrate that the shape of the Chak of the petitioner has become 'L' shape and the same is not fit for cultivation. He submitted that petitioner has claimed the allotment of the Chak on plot nos. 536 and 539, which are the original holdings of the petitioner, as such the relief claimed by petitioner cannot be denied by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order and revisional orders are liable to be set aside and the matter be sent back before the appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

5. On the other han