The revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 263. Original holdings of the petitioner are 306/2, 87/388, 9, 10, 11, 80, 87, 104, 287, 293. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11 and second chak of plot No. 104, 105, 106. Contesting respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 69 and original holdings of respondent No. 3 are plot No. 306/2, 87/388, 9, 10, 11, 80, 87, 104, 287, 293. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed three chaks to the respondent No. 3. First chak on plot No. 9, 11, second chak on plot Nos.79, 80 and third chak on plot Nos. 104, 106. One Prem Pal is chak holder No. 181 and original holdings of the Prem Pal are plot Nos. 9, 10, 11 having 1/3rd share. Petitioner and respondent No. 3 are real brothers. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed before Consolidation Officer, accordingly, petitioner was allotted additional area of plot Nos. 9, 10 and 11 by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.10.2022 on the basis of consent given by co-sharer Prem Pal. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 18.10.2022, appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.C.H. Act”) was filed by respondent No. 4/Peshkar before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 17.01.2023 adjusting the chak of petitioner as well as respondent No. 3. Against the appellate order dated 17.1.2023 respondent No. 3 filed a restoration application which was rejected vide order dated 25.05.2023. Respondent No. 3 filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been allowed vide order dated 05.01.2024, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the revisional order dated 05.01.2024 passed by respondent No. 2/Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner allotting third chak to the petitioner at revisional stage. He further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed the order allotting the additional area to the petitioner on plot Nos. 9, 10, and 11 on the basis of the consent given by another co-sharer namely, Prem Pal, as such revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the allotment made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He further submitted that petitioner was proposed two chaks which was maintained even in appeal but revisional court has increased the petitioner's chak from two to three without any basis. He further submitted that while passing the revisional order, the comparative hardship of petitioner has not been examined in proper manner, as such, impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that under the impugned order, the comparative hardship of the each and every tenure holder including the petitioner has been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has recording finding of fact that petitioner has been allotted chak on plot Nos. 9 and 11 of excess valuation accordingly, petitioner has been allotted chak on plot Nos. 287, 290, 293 taken out the area from plot Nos. 9 and 11. He further submitted that third chak allotted to petitioner is on his original holding, as such no interference is required against the impugned revisional order.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the par