Allotment of chak must prioritize proximity to original holdings, with the possibility of deviations only if justified by consolidation authorities.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Shri Jitendra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 1/Deputy Director Of Consolidation/ Additional District Officer, (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri in the Revision No. 551/202254104300000471 (Vednath Sharma v. Mohanlal Sharma & Another) and order dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 1 in Revision No. 551/2021 (Vednath Sharma v. Mohanlal Sharma & Another), instituted under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act, 1953")

3. Admittedly, the chak provided to the petitioner is on his mool gata i.e. Gata No. 343 situated at Village- Tusaura, Pargana - Paila, Tehsil and District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. Subject matter of the present petition relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, this Court is of the view that the judgments on this aspect be taken note of as the principles in respect to allotment of chak has already been settled by this Court in various pronouncements.

5. In the judgement passed in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, this Court observed as under:

"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 and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid provisions contained in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act, however, cannot be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder be imperatively including therein some plot of his original holding. The requirement of said provision, in my opinion, is that the tenure holder has to be allotted a chak of a compact area at a place where he holds the largest part of his holding and not on the plot of his largest part of holding. In making allotment of chaks equity amongst various tenure holders has got to be adjusted, and, as such, if it is not possible to include some of the original land of the tenure holder in the allotted chak; then the allotment of chak cannot be said to be invalid or without jurisdiction, on the ground that no plot of original holding of the tenure holder has been included in his chak although a chak of compact area has been allotted at a place and in the vicinity where the tenure holder holds the largest part of his holding. The requirement of allotting orig