Consolidation authorities must follow statutory guidelines when allotting chaks to ensure tenure holders receive a compact area near their original holdings, requiring documented reasoning for deviations.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha concerned.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s):-

3. Brief facts of the case in hand are as under:-

(i) The petitioner/Jaydevi W/o Chattrapal (inadvertently wrongly indicated as ^^iq= N=iky** in the petition) purchased area 0.121 hectare land, which is part of Gata No. 215 area 0.619 hectare through a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2020. The boundaries indicated in the sale deed dated 17.08.2020 are as under:-

(a) East- land of Bhagwandeen.

(b) West- land of vendor namely Ramkali widow of Banke.

(c) North- land of Saku.

(d) South- link road (Lakhimpur Kheri to Mallabehad).

(ii) From the memo of revision, it appears that the demand of the petitioner is to provide chak over Gata No. 215 having road on western side. The grounds taken in the revision, as appears from Annexure No. 6 to this petition, are extracted hereunder:-

(iii) From the impugned orders dated 29.08.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short "SOC") in Appeal No. 446/202354104300000838 (Ram Beti vs. Padum Kumar and others) filed under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short "DDC") in Revision No. 419/202354104300001078 (Jaydevi vs. Ram Beti and others) filed under Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953, it is evident that chak has been provided over mool Gata of the petitioner i.e. Gata No. 215 and her claim to provide chak adjacent to road on western side has been denied by the Consolidation Authorities.

4. Assailing the impugned orders dated 29.08.2023 and 23.11.2023, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 petitioner as also that the same are against the principles embodied under Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

5. Per contra, learned State counsel stated that the Chak(s) provided to the petitioner are just and proper and, in fact, he is not aggrieved by the orders impugned in any manner.

6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provision of the Act of 1953.

8. Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:-

"19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-

(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely:

(a)......

(b).....

(c)......

(d)......

(e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding :

Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation:

Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three."

9. From reading of Section 19 (1)(e) and considering th