The court upheld the Deputy Director's adjustments in land allocation, finding no violation of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, as petitioners failed to show prejudice or illegality.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel.

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have illegally been dislodged from their largest original holding in violation of the provisions as enunciated under Section 19(1)(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity U.P.C.H. Act).

3. Facts culled out from the record are that in provisional consolidation scheme petitioner no.1 has been proposed chak no.265 at two places; first chak over plot no.521 measuring area 0.504 hectare and second chak over plot nos.464, 465, 466, 467, 480 and 481/2 measuring area 0.360 hectare, total seven plots measuring area 0.864 hectare. Likewise, petitioner no.2 has been proposed Chak No.213 at three places; first chak over plot nos.515, 516 and 512 measuring area 0.250 hectare, second chak over plot no.521 measuring area 0.275 hectare and third chak over plot nos.158/2, 159/1, 160, 157/7, 194, 195 and 196/1 measuring area 1.532 hectare, total 11 plots measuring area 2.057 hectare. During the consolidation operation, respondent no.4 has purchased the property, accordingly, her separate chak has been carved out being chak no.381-Aa. Objection under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act filed on behalf of respondent no.4 has partially been allowed by the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 24.06.2021. Having been aggrieved with the said order, respondent no.4 has preferred an appeal dated 25.03.2023 claiming carvation of Chak abutting her abadi site. In the appeal she has also referred the order dated 17.5.2022 passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal vide, order dated 27.04.2023, on the ground that her chak no.381-Aa has already been modified by order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal No.54/2021. Having been aggrieved, respondent no.4 has filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision by order dated 24.06.2024, which is under challenged before this Court.

4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is manifested that Deputy Director of Consolidation has slightly changed the chak of Ram Devi w/o Lallu chak holder no.220, present petitioners and Rani Devi (respondent no.4) including the Bachat land to provide proper access area to the parties and also adjusted them beside their abadi sites. However, Ram Devi (chak no. 220) has not been made party in the cause title of the instant writ petition, despite the fact that her plot Nos. 478 and 479 have been allotted in the chak of petitioner no.1 and Bachat land (plot No. 158/2) has been allotted in her chak.

5. I am skeptical of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have totally been displaced from their original holdings and the area situated in front of their house. So far as petitioner no.2/Rajesh Kumar is concerned, it is evident from the amendment chart appended to the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and C.H. Form 23 that in provisional consolidation scheme, Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted second chak to the petitioner no.2 over plot no.521 measuring area 0.275 hectare with the exchange value of 80 paise having valuation of Rs.22.00. Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken out measuring area 0.107 hectare from plot no.521 area 0.275 hectare and, in its place, he has been proposed chak over plot nos.196/1 and 196/3. However, Plot no. 196/1 has already been proposed in his third chak. Petitioner no. 2 has never raised any objection against the allotment of his Chak over Plot No. 196/1. Moreover, there is no pleading on his behalf either before this Court or before the Consolidation courts that his house is situated in front of plot Nos.521 or 464 or 465. Needless to say that Plot No. 521 has been proposed in Chak of petiti