The consolidation authorities must follow relevant statutory provisions while allotting chaks, and deviations require clear, justified reasons to ensure equitable treatment among tenure holders.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 6 as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey and perused the record.

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

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2024 passed by opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director, Consolidation District Hardoi in Case No.0188/2021, Computerized Case No.2021531033000188, (Ramchandar Vs. Babu) under section 48 (1) Uttar Pradesh C.H. Act, revision no. 193/2024 and order dated 23.11.2020 passed by opposite party no.2 / Settlement Officer, Consolidation Hardoi in Appeal No. 385/2020, under section 21(2) U.P.C.H. Act, Computerized Case No.202054103300050, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

3. Assailing the impugned orders, 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 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 stated that the Chak(s) provided to the petitioners are just and proper and in fact, they are not aggrieved by the orders impugned in any manner.

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

6. 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 U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

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."

7. From reading of Section 19 (1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements.

8. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda ; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant.

“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 poss