The consolidation authorities must allot compact areas reflecting legal rights under Section 19(1)(e), ensuring valid reasons for any deviations from the standard principles of allotment.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following main relief:-

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.7.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, the opposite party No.1 in Revision No.294/202354104300000445; Shaheed v. Ramu Verma and others, contained in Annexure No.2, to the writ petition;

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties and directing the opposite party No.2 not to dispossess the petitioners from the original purchased land on which he has been proposed the Chak at C.O. stage in the interest of justice;

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties and directing the opposite party No.2 not to change the nature of land during pendency of the present writ petition in the interest of justice."

3. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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").

4. Elaborating the case of the petitioners, he further stated that part i.e. 1/5 part of the land, in issue, i.e. Gata No. 208Ka was purchased by Ramu Verma (since deceased), predecessors in interest of the petitioners, and as per the registered sale deed dated 03.10.2005 (Annexure No. 3 to this petition) particularly boundaries of the land purchased and more particularly the westeren side indicated in the said sale deed, the petitioners are entitled to chak adjacent to road and by the impugned order dated 13.07.2023, this legal right of the petitioners has been taken away.

5. Per contra, Sri Tushar Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the side opposite has stated that the chak in issue to the petitioners has been alloted on the road side, as such, in fact they are not aggrieved by the order impugned in any manner.

6. He further submitted that by the impugned order dated 13.07.2023, the eerror in providing 'L' shape plot/chak to the petitioners and depriving the revisionist from road side plot/chak has been corrected and being so, the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 is in consonance with the principles envisaged under Section 19 of the Act of 1953. Thus, no interference in the order impugned dated 13.07.2023 is required by this Court. Prayer is to dismiss the petition.

7. In support of his submission, Sri Mittal has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Raisa Begum v. D.D.C. and others reported in 2011 SCC Online All 1930 and Ram Badan v. D.D.C. and others reported in 2019 SCC Online All 6344.

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

9. 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 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

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 ful