Consolidation authorities must prioritize compactness and equitable allotment while justifying any deviations from the original plots, following Section 19 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 1/Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in the Revision No. 1316 of 2022 (Ram Manohar Vs. Sunil Dutt & Others); the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure No. 3 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda, in Appeal No. 162 and the order dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure No. to the petition) passed by opposite party no.3/Consolidation Officer, Naveen Gonda, in the proceedings instituted under U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

3. Assailing the impugned orders dated 11.11.2022, 08.09.2022, as well as 08.01.2020, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same have been passed without considering the genuine grievance of the petitioners as also that the same are against the principles embodied under Section 19 of the Act of 1953.

4. At this stage, it would be apt to indicate the following facts, which are relevant for disposal of present petition.

i) As per Form CH-2A annexed at page-33 of the present petition, the mool gata/original gata of the petitioner is Gata No. 522 situated at Village- Tikariya, Tehsil, Pargana and District - Gonda.

ii) In Form CH-2A further indicates that a 'boring' was situated over this gata and age of the boring indicated in the same is about fifteen years.

iii) In Form CH-2A the existence of 'Samadhi', etc. have not been indicated.

(iv) Form CH-23 prepared during consolidation proceedings, annexed at page 29 of the present petition, indicates that a chak has been carved out after taking note of the original holding/mool gata of the petitioner i.e. 522. and another adjacent Gata i.e. 523M. and total area provided to the petitioner is 0.276 hectares having valuation of 19 rupees and 29 paisa.

4A. Per contra, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha stated that the Chak provided to the petitioners is just and proper and, in fact, they are not aggrieved by the orders impugned in any manner.

5. Subject matter of the present petition relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, this Court is of the view that the judgments on this aspect be taken note of as the principles in respect to allotment of chak has already been settled by this Court in various pronouncements.

6. In the judgement passed in the case of Asbaran vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, this Court observed as under:

"This provision contained in Section 19 (1)(f) enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement. Apart from it, no other provisions of Section 19 of the Act enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to make allotment of chak to the tenure-holder on his original plot and the consolidation authorities in view of provisions contained in Section 19 (1)(e) of the Act are required to allot, as far as possible, a compact area to the tenure-holder at place where he holds largest part of his holding. The word as far as possible occurring in Section 19 (1)(e) of the Act cannot be construed so as to give an unfettered discretion to the consolidation authorities in not making an allotment of a chak of compact area at place where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. It while making allotment of a chak to the tenure holder the Consolidation Officer finds it difficult to make allotment of chak to him of a compact area at a place where he held the largest part of his holding, then, he has to assign reasons for not doing so. If no good reasons are shown, the allot