The court upheld the Deputy Director's decision on plot allotment based on proper share considerations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, affirming procedural fairness in the revision process.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Vimal Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 is chak holder no. 731 and petitioner no.2 is chak holder no.212. Original holding of the petitioner are 206 etc. The share of the petitioners over plot no.206 is 1/6. Plot no.206 is stated to be road side plot. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chaks to the petitioners. The first chak over plot no.575M, 574M area 0.264 hectare and second chak over plot no.206M area 0.470 hectare. Respondent no. 12 is chak holder no. 941 and original holding of respondent no.12 are plot no.206 etc having 1/6 share. The chak objection filed against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was decided by the Consolidation Officer and chak appeal filed against the order of Consolidation Officer was decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The chak revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") has been filed by the contesting respondent, which was initially allowed vide order dated 18.10.2022. Against the order dated 18.10.2022, restoration application was filed by the petitioners which has resulted into the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 by which the revision filed by the contesting respondent has been allowed adjusting the petitioner and contesting respondents to road side plot no.206 according to their share, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the impugned revisional order dated 16.11.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were rightly proposed second chak on road side plot no.206M area 0.470 hectare. He further submitted that the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was maintained up to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. He further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision setting aside the adjustment made up to the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He next submitted that the grievance of the petitioners has not been considered in proper manner while deciding the revision under the impugned order. He further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision under the impugned order. He next submitted that on the restoration application filed by the petitioners the earlier order was recalled and revision was restored to its original number but under the subsequent order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has again restored the earlier order in place of deciding the revision afresh in accordance with law. He next submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation be maintained.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that the plot no.206 is the original road side of the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent and both parties have been adjusted on their original road side plot according to their share under the impugned revisional order, as such, no interference is required against the impugned revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and writ petition is