JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and 8, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 4 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "DDC"), Bahraich.

3. While assailing the impugned order dated 23.03.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same has been passed in violation of principles envisaged under Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

4. Elaborating, he stated that during consolidation proceedings, the allotment should be made over original gata (mool gata) of the tenure holder and further, as per Section 19 of the Act of 1953, the source of irrigation should be taken note of while making allotment by the Consolidation Authorities under the Act of 1953.

5. It is also stated that in the instant case, the respondent No. 2/Appellate Authority/Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) considered the source of irrigation as also the share over Gata No. 1235, area 0.957 Hectare, in issue, and considering the same, the respondent No.2 provided the chak to the petitioner over Gata No. 1235 vide order dated 31.01.2023. He also stated that while passing the order dated 31.01.2023, SOC also conducted on the spot inspection.

6. It is also stated that ignoring the principles related to allotment of chak(s), the DDC interfered in the order passed by SOC dated 31.01.2023 and by virtue of the impugned order dated 23.03.2023, the petitioner would not get any share over Gata No. 1235. Moreover, the source of irrigation of the petitioner has also been ignored while passing the order impugned dated 23.03.2023.

7. On the other hand, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and 8 stated that the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is not liable to be interfered with by this Court, as two revisions one by Abdul Mannan and another by Smt. Jalima were filed, registered as Case Nos. 499/ 202354081500000123 and 500/ 202354081500000124, broadly on the ground that as per principles envisaged under Section 19 of the Act of 1953, the chak should be rectangular in nature and taking note of the same, proper chak(s) have been allotted on Gata Nos. 1214 and 1235 to all the co-sharers.

8. Further submission is that the petitioner has been allotted two chaks over his mool gata No. 1235 over which he is holding largest share i.e. 1/9 share, which is indicated in ground-C of this petition and 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, which is permissible under law. As such, no interference is required in the matter.

9. Further submission is that the submission of petitioner's counsel that petitioner's boring is situated over Gata No. 1235 is completely fallacious and baseless, as there is no