Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52182

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 112 of 2023

Petitioner :- Ashfak Ahmad

Respondent :- The Deputy Director Consolidation Sultanpur

And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Yadav,Arvind Kumar

Pathak

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar

Pandey,C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

At the bar, it is stated by Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, opposite

party No.5 (contesting opposite party) that WRIT - B No. - 112

of 2023, (Ashfak Ahmad vs. Deputy Director Consolidation

Sultanpur And Others) relates to allotment of chak, as such, this

petition can be decided separately.

Taking note of the aforesaid as also that the issue in WRIT - B

No. - 179 of 2023, (Khurshid Ahmad And Others vs. Deputy

Director Consolidation Sultanpur And Others) relates to

jurisdiction of D.D.C, this Court proceeded to decide the WRIT

- B No. - 112 of 2023 separately.

Heard Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite

party No.5 and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State

Counsel.

Under challenge are the order(s) dated 12.12.2022, 14.09.2022

and 27.01.2021 passed by opposite party No.1/Deputy Director

Consolidation Sultanpur, opposite party No.2/Settlement

Officer Consolidation Sultanpur and opposite party

No.3/Consolidation Officer Sadar, Sultanpur, respectively.

The grievance of the petitioner as appears from the material

available on record including the averments made in the present

petition is to the effect that the Consolidation Authorities failed

to provide chak(s) to the petitioner adjacent to the road.

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties and perused the record.

Subject matter of the present petition relates to allotment of

chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, this Court is of the

view that the judgments on this aspect be taken note of as the

principles in respect to allotment of chak has already been

settled by this Court in various pronouncements.

In the judgement passed in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy

Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, this

Court observed as under:

"This provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) enjoins upon the

consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private source of

irrigation or any other improvement. Apart from it, no other provisions of

Section 19 of the Act enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to make

allotment of chak to the tenure-holder on his original plot and the

consolidation authorities in view of provisions contained in Section 19(1)

(e) of the Act are required to allot, as far as possible, a compact area to

the tenure-holder at place where he holds largest part of his holding. The

word as far as possible occurring in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act cannot be

construed so as to give an unfettered discretion to the consolidation

authorities in not making an allotment of a chak of compact area at place

where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. It while making

allotment of a chak to the tenure holder the Consolidation Officer finds it

difficult to make allotment of chak to him of a compact area at a place

where he held the largest part of his holding, then, he has to assign

reasons for not doing so. If no good reasons are shown, the allotment

would certainly be held to be irregular and cannot be sustained. The

aforesaid provisions contained in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act, however,

cannot be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities

to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder be imperatively including

therein some plot of his original holding. The requirement of said

provision, in my opinion, is that the tenure holder has to be allotted a chak

of a compact area at a place where he holds the largest part of his holding

and not on the p