The consolidation authorities must prioritize allotting compact land areas to tenure holders based on existing holdings, justifying deviations only with specific reasons.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel.

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

"ISSUE a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 28-12-2018 passed by the opp. party no. 1 in revision no. 2017531064000024 Shafeeq Ahmad Vs Shrimati Sarla and others as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

3. Brief facts which are relevant for deciding the case in hand are as under:-

(i) The revisionist/Shafeeq Ahmad, who is respondent No. 3 in the instant petition, was the recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 1070/1.414 hectare, Gata No. 1026/0.197 hectare and Gata No. 1069/0.045 hectare and over these Gatas, revisionist/Shafeeq Ahmad was/is having 1/40 share.

(ii) The petitioners namely Devendra Kumar Dodeja and Smt. Radhika Dodeja purchased 3/4 share of 1/8 share of each of these Gatas i.e. Gata Nos. 1070, 1026 and 1069 through a sale deed dated 31.07.2013 registered on 08.08.2013 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sitapur. By this sale deed, the petitioners purchased 0.328 hectare land of Gata No. 1026, 0.045 hectare land of Gata No. 1069 and 1.704 hectare land of Gata No. 1070.

(iii) The petitioners over the area relating to Gata Nos. 1024, 1026, 1069, 1070 and 1025 purchased through sale deed dated 08.03.2010 registered on 08.03.2010 are running brick kiln.

(iv) From the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the opposite party No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur (in short "DDC") in Revision No. 2017531064000024 (Shafeeq Ahmad Vs Shrimati Sarla and others) filed under Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953, it is evident that chak has been provided to the revisionist/respondent No. 3-Shafeeq Ahmad over Gata No. 1026 and the petitioners have been provided chak over Gata No. 1070, who have purchased 1.704 hectare land of this Gata. In other words, the chak has been provided over the largest Gata of the petitioners.

4. Assailing the impugned order dated 28.12.2018, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the impugned order is 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