The court upheld the adjustment of chak allotment based on original tenure rights and comparative hardship, affirming the authority's jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Raghuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 2, respondent No. 5 is chak Holder No. 595 and respondent No. 7 is chak Holder No. 246. The original holdings of the petitioner are 178/2 M and 178/3, 179, 185, 298/1, 298/2. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak on Plot No. 178/3, 179, 183/3, 195 & 184 and Second chak on Plot No. 298/2 and 300. The original holdings of respondent No. 5 are Plot No. 298 and 299. respondent No. 5 was proposed two chaks, First chak on Plot No. 197/1, 198/2 and second chak on Plot No. 298M and 299 M. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed and decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.09.2022, allotting chak to petitioner on plot No. 298 and 299 area 0.069 hectare after taking out the area from plot No. 298/2 and 300. Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 28.09.2022, chak appeal was filed by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12, which was decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 26.05.2023, allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12, by which petitioner and contesting respondents were adjusted on plot No. 298 and 299 according to their share in their original holdings. Against appellate order dated 26.05.2023, revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by respondent No. 5, which has been allowed under the impugned Order dated 20.11.2023, adjusting petitioner, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 7 on Plot No. 299M, 300M 298/1M and 298/2M, hence this Writ Petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the impugned revisional order dated 20.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is original tenure holder of Plot No. 298, as such claim was set up before Consolidation authorities that petitioner should be allotted chak on Plot No. 299, which is adjacent to his original holding in order to make his chak rectangular to the roadside. He submitted that in chak appeal and revision filed by contesting respondent, the chak of the petitioner had been disturbed, as such, the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer of Consolidation be set aside and stage of Consolidation Officer be maintained.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submitted that respondent No. 5 is original tenure holder of plot No. 299, having 5/ 16 share, accordingly, her right has been adjusted under the impugned revisional order in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further placed Village Map as well as self-prepared sketch Map of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation Stage in order to demonstrate that petitioner, respondent No. 5 as well as petitioner's brother respondent No. 7 have been adjusted to the main road as well as chak Road in proper manner and the shape of the Chak of all the parties have been made rectangular. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that objection filed by the petitioner was allowed but in chak appeal and chak revision, the order passed by Consolidation Officer has been modified and the Plot Nos. 298, 299 and 300 have been adjusted between petitioner and contesting respondent.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the r