The court mandated reconsideration of land allotment claims, emphasizing the necessity of a fair hearing for all affected parties under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.92 and original holdings of the petitioner are plot nos. 116M, 117, 31 and 180, total area of 0.2880 hect. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak on plot no.31M, area 0.125 hect and 2nd chak on plot nos. 116M, 117M, 118M, 119M area 0.203 hectare total, area 0.328 hect. Respondent no.4 is chak holder no.211 and original holding of respondent no.4 is plot no.69, area 0.4820 hect. Respondent no.4 was proposed two chaks, 1st chak on plot no.15M and 51M, total area 0.488 hect and 2nd chak on 179M and 180M, area 0.355 hect. Respondent No.5 is chak holder no. 256 and original holding of respondent no. 5 are plot no. 180 & others. Respondent No. 5 was proposed chak on his original plot no. 180M alongwith other plots. Against the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed chak objection before the consolidation officer which was heard and the same was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2021. Against the order of the consolidation officer dated 22-12-2021, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "U.P. C.H. Act") which was dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2022. Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 17.8.2023, hence, this instant writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the impugned order dated 17.8.2023, 17.8.2022 & 22.12.2021 passed by the consolidation authorities.

3. This Court vide order dated 26.2.2024 has entertained the matter and issued notice to respondent nos. 4 & 5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.2.2024, respondent no.4 has filed his counter affidavit and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is original tenure holder of plot no.180, which is a good quality of land, as such, chak objection was filed by the petitioner, praying for allotment of the area on his original plot no.180, according to his share rather on plot nos. 116 & 117 which are not fit for cultivation. He submitted that chak objection/appeal/revision filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed in violation of the mandatory provision contained under Section-19 & 23 (iii) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as Rule 24 Gha of U.P.C.H. Rules. He further submitted that substantial area of plot no. 180 has been allotted to the contesting respondent in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that plot No. 180 is situated near the house of the petitioner as such petitioner cannot be deprived from plot no. 180. He also submitted that petitioner has taken specific ground in the grounds of revision for allotment of second chak on plot no.180 rather on plot nos. 116, 117, 118, & 119. He submitted that specific grounds taken in the grounds of revision, has not been considered and the revision has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the consolidation authorities be set aside and the petitioner's claim be examined afresh for allotment of chak on his original plot No. 180 according to the ground set up in the objection/appeal/revision.

5. On the other hand, Sri. Ram Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that petitioner was proposed two chaks on their original plots, as such, the chak objection/appeal/revision filed by the petitioner, has been rightly rejected. He also submitted that it is not necessary that every chak holder be allotted their all the original plots. He further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has assigned the reason in support of the order, as such, no interference is required in the