The allotment of roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Srikrishna Mishra assised by Mr. Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tawvab Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent no.3 are real brother. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the nephew of the petitioner. Petitioner is chak holder No. 1564 and original holdings of the petitioner are plot Nos. 619, 637, 606M, 652, 589M, total area 0.594 hectare. Petitioner was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 652 and 653M, total area 0.594 hectare. Respondent no.3 is chak holder No. 1676 and original holdings of the respondent no.3 are plot Nos. 629, 637, 606M, 652, 589M, 606 total area 0.490 hectare. Respondent no.3 was proposed single chak on plot Nos. 638, 637 total area 0.514 hectare. Father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 namely Jameer Ahamad was chak holder No. 462 and original holdings of Jameer Ahamad are plot Nos. 619, 637, 606, 652, 589, total area 0.403 hectare. Jameer Ahamad was proposed single chak on plot No. 619 area 0.369 hectare. Petitioner filed a chak objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer for allotment of chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652 and 653, the aforementioned objection was registered as case No. 91 Sagir Ahamad Vs. State. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.3.2017 allowed the objection filed by petitioner allotting him chak on plot No. 619 in place of plot Nos. 652, 653, the aforementioned objection was registered as case No.91 Sagir Ahamad vs. State. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.03.2017 allowed the objection filed by petitioner allotting him chak on plot No.619 in place of plot Nos.652, 653. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 challenged the order dated 10.3.2017 in appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation with the prayer that should be allotted chak on plot No. 619 as the plot No. 619 is roadside plot of both parties. The aforementioned appeals was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 23.5.2017 allotting chak to respondent nos. 4 and 5 on plot No. 619 area 0.264. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 23.5.2017 through revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent no.4 also filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act praying for single chak on plot No. 619. The aforementioned revisions was heard together and vide order dated 24.3.2018 the revision filed by petitioner was fully allowed and revision filed by respondent no.4 was allowed in part. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a restoration application dated 28.3.2018 as well as Hasrat Ali filed a restoration application dated 5.4.2018 against the order dated 24.3.2018 which have been rejected vide order dated 24.5.2018 by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed a writ B No. 4576 of 2018 and respondent no.3 filed a writ B No. 4583 of 2018 against the orders dated 24.3.2018 and 24.5.2018 which were heard and allowed by this Court by separate orders dated 25.07.2023 setting aside the orders dated 24.03.2018 & 24.5.2018 and remanded the matter back before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision