The court upheld the DDC's order on chak allotment, finding no substantial displacement of the petitioner or loss of irrigation sources, emphasizing the need for evidence to support claims.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned standing counsel for the State respondents.

3. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.5.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') in a revision arising out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act'), the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. Facts culled out from the record are that in the provisional consolidation scheme, the present petitioner (Lallu Singh) has been proposed chak No.1099 at three places; the first chak consisting of plot nos.199, 200, 201 and 202 etc., the second chak has been proposed over plot nos.602, 603 and 604 etc.; and the third chak has been proposed over plot nos.351 and 352 totalling 15 plots measuring area 2.151 hectares. Likewise Krishna Autar Sharma (respondent No.2) has been proposed chak No.108 at two places; the first chak at plot nos.262/1, 262/2, 263 etc. and the second chak on plot no.766, totaling 6 plots measuring area 1.165 hectares. Likewise, Maya Devi (respondent no.3) has been proposed chak no.815 and Nemwati (respondent no.4) has been proposed chak no.2. Plot No. 200 measuring area 0.530 hectares is original holding of petitioner to the extent of half (1/2) share and plot no. 201 measuring area 0.396 hectares is the original holding of respondent no. 2 to the extent of his 1/6 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer has not allotted chak to the respondent no. 2 over his original holding No. 201, however, substantial area of plot no. 201 has been allotted in the chak of petitioner. In chak allotment proceedings, the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'CO'), vide order dated 11.11.2021, has further disturbed the chak of respondent no.2, whereby petitioner has been allotted additional area measuring 0.119 hectares over plot no. 201. In the meantime, a common order dated 4.11.2021 has been passed by the CO on several objections filed on behalf of the villagers. Having been aggrieved with the orders dated 4.11.2021 and 11.11.2021 passed by the CO, respondent no.2 has preferred two separate appeals being Appeal No.528 filed against order dated 4.11.2021 and Appeal No.607 filed against the order dated 11.11.2021. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC'), vide separate orders dated 12.9.2022, has dismissed both the appeals. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the SOC, respondent no.2 has preferred two revisions, the first revision being Revision no.471/202254137400001754 has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2022 passed in Appeal No.528, and the second revision being Revision no.473/202254137400001756 has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2022 passed in Appeal No.607. The DDC, vide common order dated 28.5.2024, has dismissed the Revision no.471/202254137400001754, however, allowed the Revision no.473/002254137400001756, whereby chak of petitioner alongwith chak of the respondents have been modified, which is under challenge before this court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned passed by the DDC, has advanced two fold submissions; first, that the petitioner has been displaced from plot no.200, which is his original holdings; and second, that his source of irrigation and the mausoleum of his brother have been taken out from the chak of the petitioner and given in the chak of the contesting respondent no.2.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that a significant area of plot no.200 is still in the possession of the petitioner. It is next contended that the source of irrigation and mausoleum belonging to the petitioner, if any, have not been a