Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3629 of 2022

Petitioner :- Bhagwatiya And 2 Others

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 16 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Janmejay Pratap Singh,Pankaj

Sharma,Prashant Sharma

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kripa Shanker Yadav,Manish

Dev

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr. Kunwar Janmejay Pratap Singh, holding brief of Mr.

Pankaj Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing

Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Manish Dev, Counsel for

private respondent Nos.4 to 17.

With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being heard and

disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioners No.1 is chak holder

No.520 and petitioner No.2 is chak holder No.419 and petitioner

No.3 is chak holder No.267. Petitioner No.1 is original tenure

holder of Plot Nos.84, 202, 204, 223, 244, 341/1, 341/2 and 831

having 1/4 share. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed a

chak to petitioner No.1 on plot Nos.831 and 832, C.H. Form 23 (1)

of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been annexed as Annexure No.1

to the writ petition. An objection under Section 20 of U.P. C.H.

Act has been filed by the tenure holders against the proposal of the

Assistant Consolidation officer, no objection was filed by the

petitioners as petitioners were satisfied with the proposal made by

the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer

decided the objection of the tenure holders. Against the order of

Consolidation Officer dated 24.08.2019 petitioners being mother

and sons filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of

Consolidation which was decided vide order dated 18.12.2021

granting relief in part to the petitioner. Against the appellate order

several revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act have been filed

by the contesting respondents. All revisions were clubbed together

and same were decided by impugned order dated 05.09.2022

resulting into disturbing the petitioners' chak specially plot No.831

which is original holding of the petitioners. Hence this writ

petition.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are original

tenure holders of plot No.831 having 1/4 share but revisional court

has taken out plot No.831 without considering the case of the

petitioners. He further submitted that revisoinal Court has not

recorded finding for disturbing the petitioners' chak. He further

submitted that comparative hardship of the petitioner has not been

considered at all and the revision has been decided, which is

wholly illegal.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the provisions

contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted

that petitioners have been deprived from plot No.831 without

assigning the reason in support of the order passed by the

revisional court, as such impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

On the other hand Mr. Manish Dev, appearing for the contesting

respondents submitted that equity has been adjusted between the

tenure holder as such no interference is required. He further

submitted that entire area of the plot No.831 has not been taken

away from the petitioners, as such petitioner cannot assail the

impugned order. He further submitted that every tenure holders

canot be adjusted on their original plots. He further submitted that

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the advanced by the counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners are original

tenure holders of plot no.831 having 1/4 share and the petitioners

have been deprived from Plot No.831 at the revisional stage.

Since the petitioners are original tenure holder of plot No.831 and

according to the petitioners their source of irrigation is situated in

the same, as such interest of justice requires that revisional court

should consider the revision afresh and