Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and cannot act arbitrarily in allotting chaks, with judicial review permissible if principles of equity are violated.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey.

2. In view of the order proposed, issuance of notice to private respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main reliefs:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 16.10.2023 and 19.05.2023 passed by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition."

4. Assailing the impugned order(s), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same has been passed without considering the genuine grievance of the petitioner as also that the same is against the principles embodied under Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

5. Per contra, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State has stated that the Chak(s) provided to the petitioners are just and proper and in fact, they are not aggrieved by the order(s) impugned in any manner.

6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provision of the Act of 1953.

8. Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:-

"19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely,

(a)......

(b).....

(c)......

(d)......

(e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding :

Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation:

Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three."

9. From reading of Section 19(1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements.

10. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant.

"This provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement. Apart from it, no other provisions of Section 19 of the Act enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to make allotment of chak to the tenure-holder on his original plot and the consolidation authorities in view of provisions contained in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act are required to allot, as far as possible, a compact area to the tenure-holder at place where he holds largest part of his holding. The word as far as possible occurring in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act cannot be construed so as to give an unfettered discretion to the consolidation authorities in not making an allotment of a chak of compact area at place where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. It while making allotment of a chak to the tenure holder the Consolidation Officer finds it difficult to make allotment of chak to him of a compact area at a place where he held the largest part of his holding, then, he has to assign reasons for not doing so. If no good reasons are shown, the allotment would certainly be held to be irregular a