Judicial review in consolidation cases is limited to determining substantial illegality or prejudice; a lack of demonstrated harm to the petitioner warrants dismissal of the challenge to administrative orders.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 & 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for private respondent no.3 and perused the records.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, affirming the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by Consolidation Officer, whereby area of Plot No.557 has been corrected to be measuring area 1.015 hectare in place of measuring area 2.562 hectare and its exchange value has been fixed to be eighty (80) paise, respectively.

3. Facts culled out from the records are that instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Plot No.557, which has been allotted in the Chak of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (respondent no.3), was kept out of the consolidation operation, vide order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the report dated 28.06.2017 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. At later stage, a recall/restoration application has been filed by respondent no.3 who is the tenure-holder. The said recall application was allowed and the order dated 07.07.2017 was recalled. During pendency of proceedings, Consolidation Officer has called for the report from the authorities concerned with respect to the nature of Plot No.557. Having considered the report dated 06.12.2019 and 25.10.2018 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and report dated 30.12.2019 submitted by Chief Treasurer, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 13.03.2020, has corrected the area of Plot No.557 measuring area 2.562 hectare to be the area measuring 1.015 hectare and, accordingly, dimensions of said plot has been corrected in the map along with other surrounding plots. By subsequent order dated 26.06.2020, Consolidation Officer has fixed exchange value of Plot No.557 measuring area 1.015 hectare to be eighty (80) paise.

4. Having been aggrieved with the orders dated 13.03.2020 & 26.06.2020, three appeals were preferred. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 12.08.2021, has quashed the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer, reviving the previous map and status of Plot No.557 whereby it was kept out of consolidation operation. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent no.3 (Rameshchandra Sharma) has filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 29.10.2021, has allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Consequently, orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer have been affirmed.

5. Deputy Director of Consolidation has given categorical finding that exchange value of Plot No.557 has already been fixed in statement of principals before distribution of CH-Form-5, to wit, before the notification promulgated under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, however, at later stage, without any justification, aforesaid plot has been ordered to be kept out of Consolidation Operation, vide order dated 07.07.2017. Thus, prima facie, provisions as enunciated under Section 24 of U.P.C.H. Act and guidelines issued by Directorate have not been seemed to be violated. Contesting respondents in the revision have simply referred the violation of Section 24 of U.P.C.H. Act, however, failed to demonstrate as to what prejudice encompassed to them owing to determining the area of Plot No.557 and it's exchange value, and accordingly correcting the map. Revisionist (respondent no.3 herein), who has been allotted