The consolidation authorities must ensure allotments adhere to the Act's provisions, balancing tenure holders' rights and equitable allocations.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Tauqueer Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "DDC"), Unnao in Revision No. 558 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 202254106900001621 (Laxman v. Rajnu and others) filed under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "SOC") in Appeal No. 419, Computerized Case No. 202254106900001525 (Laxman Prasad v. Rajnu and Others) filed under Section 21(2) Act of 1953, whereby the appeal was partly allowed and also the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer Bangarmau District Unnao in Case No. 103-21/22 (Laxman Prasad and Others v. State of U.P.) under Section 21(1) Act of 1953, by which the objection filed by the petitioner was rejected.

3. While assailing the impugned order(s) dated 29.08.2022, 18.10.2022, 24.07.2023, respectively, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same are in violation of principles envisaged under Section 19 of Act of 1953.

4. It is also stated that the impugned order(s) passed by respondent nos. 1,2 and 3, are arbitrary and illegal and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well material available on record. The authorities under the Act of 1953 while passing impugned orders did not consider that the first Chak of the petitioner should be made on the Gata No. 166 area 1.25 at the West side including the boring and second Chak Gata No. 79 area 0.708 as per 1/2 share ¼vkB vkuk½ of the petitioner over these Gatas and the Udan Chak should be removed. He also stated that no spot inspection was made by SOC concerned. It is also stated that ignoring the principles related to allotment of chak(s), the DDC also dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by SOC dated 18.10.2022, whereby the SOC partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and by virtue of the impugned orders, the petitioner would be deprived of his right. Moreover, the source of irrigation of the petitioner has also been ignored while passing the orders.

5. On the other hand, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State stated that the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with by this Court, as two chaks to the petitioner have been provided on his 'Mool' gatas as per principles envisaged under Section 19 of the Act of 1953 including after taking note of valuation.

6. Further submission is that Section 19 of the Act of 1953 says that chak should be allotted to the tenure holder at a place where he holds largest part of his holding. It is also stated that maximum three chaks can be allotted by the Consolidation Authorities and with the approval of DDC, four chaks can be allotted. In the instant case, the petitioner has been given two chaks over his 'Mool' gatas, which is permissible under law. As such, no interference is required in the matter.

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

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

9. 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)......