The modification of plot allocation that renders it unfit for cultivation contradicts the purpose of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, requiring respect for original allocations essential for effective land use.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

1. Case called out in the revised list.

2. Heard Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Bhatt for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent/ opposite party no.1.

3. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that Sri M.S. Khan Advocate alongwith Sri Amir Hasan Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 (now deceased). However no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2.

4. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased opposite party no.2 were substituted as opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 in the array of parties vide order dated 05.09.2024.

5. The Office report dated 14.08.2024 shows that the notices were sent to opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 but were not received back, as such the service of notice upon opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 is deemed sufficient as per Rules of the Court.

6. The facts of the case, in nutshell, as culled out from the material available on record are that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are the tenure holders of Chak No.251 and Chak No 180 respectively. The area of chak originally held by the petitioner was only .061 Are.

7. During the consolidation operation, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad proposed a single chak to the petitioner on Plot No.175 adjacent to the chak allotted to his father.

8. Against the same,the opposite party no.2 filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad, who allowed the objection vide order dated 13.03.1991 and without assigning any reason, modified the earlier chak that was allotted to the petitioner and the chak at Plot No. 148 on 0.20 paisa valuation land was allotted to him.

9. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT ,1953 challenging the order dated 13.03.1991 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad partially allowed the said Appeal vide judgment and order dated 02.08.1991. By means of the said order dated 02.08.1991, the petitioner was again allotted the chak that was initially proposed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tarun, Faizabad and maintained the previous position as was existing before the Assistant Consolidation Officer.

10. Being aggrieved against the order dated 02.08.1991 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad, opposite party no.2 (now deceased) filed Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act,1953 before opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, which was partly allowed vide its judgment and order dated 23.07.1992.

11. The submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the chak that was allotted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was rectangular in shape and adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The Sahan of the house of the petitioner is adjacent to the Plot No.175.

12. It has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the basis of consent given by the then holder of Plot No. 175, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad vide judgment and order dated 23.07.1992, allotted chak to the opposite party no.2 on Plot No. 175 without taking into consideration the bonafide claim of the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order was passed merely on the basis of consent of the original holder of Plot No.175 which cannot be the ground for altering the position of plot of the petitioner. Further, the Deputy D