The allotment of chak under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must adhere to the legal provisions regarding equitable distribution among co-sharers, as confirmed in the case.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh learned counsel for respondent No.4/Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.3 are real brother. Petitioner is chak holder No.189 and respondent no.3 is chak holder No.872. Plot No.617 etc. are the original plot of petitioner and respondent No.3 which are mentioned in C.H. Form 23 (Part-1) as annexed along with writ petition. Petitioner was proposed three chak by consolidation officer first chak on plot No.615, Second chak on plot No.439 M etc and third chak on plot No.545M etc. Respondent No.3 was also proposed three chak, first chak om plot No.422 etc. Second Chak on plot NO.385 etc and third chak on plot No700 etc. Petitioner filed chak objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred as U.P.C.H. Act for allotment of chak on plot No.385 in place of his second chak allotted on plot No.439 etc. The other objection were also filed by the chak holders and all the chak objection were heard together and decided vide order dated 30.11.2021 by which petitioner's claim for allotment on plot No.385 was rejected. Appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2022. Petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was heard along with other revisions and the revision filed by petitioner was partly allowed vide order dated 22.08.2022 allotting chak on plot No.385 behind the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order of Consolidation authorities through Writ-B No.2545 of 2022 before this Court which was heard and allowed vide order dated 11.10.2023 remitting the matter before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh within period of three months. In pursuance of the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by this Court Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the revision vide order dated 29.10.2024 and maintained the earlier order dated 22.08.2022. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by respondent No.1 (annexure No.10 to the writ petiton)."

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been deprived from road side original plot according to his share as such impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that earlier revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside by this Court and matter was sent back to decide the revision afresh but the Deputy director of Consolidation has again affirm his earlier order which is illegal exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not made the spot inspection while passing the impugned order, as such the impugned order is illegal. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has allotted chak to the petitioner on the plot which is not fit for cultivation and the order has been maintained in appeal and revision. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to exchange his chak from the chak of the respondent No.3. He submitted that provision contained under Section-19 of U.P.C.H. Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that petitioner and respondent no.3 are real brother and both have been adjusted on their origi