The court upheld the D.D.C.'s order modifying chak allotments, affirming that administrative decisions should not be interfered with unless clear illegality or injustice is shown.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the private respondents no.3 & 4 and perused the record on Board.

3. The petitioners have shown their grievance against the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') in Revision No.0067 of 2021 filed on behalf of Hausla Prasad (respondent no.4) and Revision No.0068 of 2021 filed on behalf of Prabhawati Devi (respondent no.3) whereby respective chaks of the petitioners have been disturbed.

4. Facts culled out from the record are that the instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceeding. In provisional consolidation scheme, Jata Shankar (petitioner no.1) has been proposed chak no.154 and Muneem Shankar (petitioner no.2) has been proposed chak no.332. Likewise, respondent no.3 has been proposed chak no.257 and Haushila Prasad (respondent no.4) has been proposed chak no.607. Having been dissatisfied with their chaks, respondents no.3 & 4 have filed objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'). The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 30.12.2020, has slightly changed the chak of respondents no.3 & 4, consequently, they have been deprived of their original holdings. Appeal filed on behalf of the contesting respondents have been dismissed. The D.D.C., on revisions being filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, has allowed the revisions by common order dated 18.05.2024 which is under challenge before this Court.

5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that, precisely, the dispute relates to plot no.391/2 which is the original holding of the petitioners as well as the contesting private respondents. Petitioners no.1 & 2 are real brothers and respondents no.3 & 4 are wife and husband. Petitioners no.1 & 2 are having 1/60th share each in plot no.391/2, however, respondents no.3 & 4 are having 1/5th share each in plot no.391/2. The D.D.C. has returned categorical finding that petitioner no.1 (chak holder no.154) was proposed only one chak over plot no.391/2 along with plot no.390, however, at the stage of the Consolidation Officer, certain modification was proposed by including plot no.385. Likewise, petitioner no.2 (chak holder no.332) was also proposed one chak at plot no.391/2 and plot no.390. At the stage of the Consolidation Officer, minor changes have been made by including plot nos.385, 386 etc. However, respondent no.3 has been proposed only one chak over his original holding no.287/1 including 285/2 etc. At the stage of the Consolidation Officer, her chak has substantially been disturbed whereby first chak, without any original holding, has been proposed over chak nos.214, 217 etc. and second chak has been proposed over plot nos.293, 295 and third chak has been proposed over original plot no.69 including plot no.72. Respondent no.4 has been proposed two chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, however, at the stage of the Consolidation Officer, he has been proposed four chaks. Plot no.391/2 is a valuable land situates abutting the canal. First chak of respondent no.3 is proposed over plot nos.214, 217, 219 and 385 out of which plot no.219 and its surrounding plots are the original holdings of the petitioners. C.H.Form 23 belongs to petitioners no.1 & 2 (Anneuxre-S.A.-1 & S.A.-2) respectively, evince that they have been proposed area 0.0103 hectare each over plot no.391/2, which is more than their respective share. Having considered the larger area allotted to the petitioners, the D.D.C. has modified their carvation of chak over plot no.391/2 and, accordingly, taken out measuring area 0.069 having exchanged value of 90 paise from plot no.391/2 and in its place allo