Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is chak holder no.408 and private respondents are chak holder no.434. The original holdings of the petitioner are 325, 355/787 having 1/2 share i.e. 0.101 hectare. Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted single chak to the petitoiner on plot no.403 & 580 area 0.121 hectare. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer chak objection was filed by the petitioner. Consolidation Officer rejected the chak objection filed by the petitioner, accordingly, chak appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 25.5.2018 with the prayer that the petitioner should be allotted chak on their original plot nos.325 & 355/ 787. One appeal was filed by the Mithai Lal(chak holdar no.-266). Appeal filed by the petitioner was registered as Appeal No.402/551/ 2 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 2018-2019 and appeal filed by Mithai Lal was reigstered as Appeal No.400/547/ 2018-2019. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 15.11.2018 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the appeal filed by Mithai Lal was also allowed in part. Under the appellate order, petitioner was adjusted on plot no.355/787, 349 & 352. Against the appellate order dated 15.11.2018, one chak revision was filed by the petitioners and two more revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Revision filed by petitioner was registered as Revision No.1460 of 2022-2023, revision filed by Satya Narain and others was registered as Revision No.1447 of 2022-2023, revision filed by Mithai Lal was registered as Revision No.1461 of 2022-2023. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated

25.2.2023 allowed all the three revisions setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.11.2018. Mother of respondent nos.2 to 5 filed a Writ- B No.1930 of 2023 before this Court, which was allowed vide oeder dated 7.7.2023 setting aside the revisional order dated 25.2.2023 and matter was remitted back before the revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 7.7.2023, aforementioned three revisions were registered on their original number and heard afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.3.2025 dismissed all the three revisions recording finding that appellate order was passed in proper manner adjusting tenure holder on their original plots in view of the provisions contained under U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief: "issue suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the 3 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 impugned order dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure No.8) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur respondent no.1 in Revision No.1924/2024-25 (Lolarakh Nath vs. Shiromana and others), under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1953."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chak revision filed by petitioner has not been decided in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is small tenure holder, as such, he should be allotted chak on his original plot no.325 & 355/787 according to the share of the petitioner. He further submitted that the relief was granted in appeal in part, accordingly, chak revision was filed but Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the petitioner's revision on misconceived ground. He further submitted that improvement made by the petitioner on his chak but Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the improvement made by the petitioner over his chak and dismissed the revision in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned revisional order should be set aside and petitioner should be allotted chak on his original plot as claimed by him in the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 submitted that the petitioner was granted relief in chak appeal, as such, there was no occasion to file revision at the instance of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was adjusted on his original plot as for as possible. He further submitted that it is not possible that every tenure holder should be given chak including all his original plot in his chak. He 4 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 further submitted that the impugned revisional order has been passed taking into consideration about the fact that petitioner has mortgaged the plot no.349&352 to the bank, which has been allotted to him under the order of consolidation authorities, as such, it is not possible to further adjust the chak of the petitioner which was allotted to him under the appellate order including the plot no.349&352. He further submitted that even under the appellate order petitioner has been allotted one of his original plot out of two. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the chak proceeding has been decided by the consolidation authorities under the impugned order on the basis of chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision filed by the petitioner as well as other tenure holders.

7. Perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner which is annexed along with the writ petition demonstrates that the petitioner is original tenure holder of plot no.325 as well as 355/787 and under the appellate order petitioner has been adjusted on plot no.355/787 including plot no.349 as well as 352.

8. It is material to mention that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and petitioner has mortgaged plot no. 349 as well as 352 to the bank, as such, there is no illegality in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which appellate order has been maintained. It is also 5 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 material to mention that Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the chak revision has considered the each and every aspect of the matter including the comparative hardship of every tenure holder, which is correct exercise of revisional jurisdiction in respect to the chak allotment proceeding.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order passed in allotment of chak proceeding.

10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. November 21, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is chak holder no.408 and private respondents are chak holder no.434. The original holdings of the petitioner are 325, 355/787 having 1/2 share i.e. 0.101 hectare. Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted single chak to the petitoiner on plot no.403 & 580 area 0.121 hectare. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer chak objection was filed by the petitioner. Consolidation Officer rejected the chak objection filed by the petitioner, accordingly, chak appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 25.5.2018 with the prayer that the petitioner should be allotted chak on their original plot nos.325 & 355/ 787. One appeal was filed by the Mithai Lal(chak holdar no.-266). Appeal filed by the petitioner was registered as Appeal No.402/551/ 2 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 2018-2019 and appeal filed by Mithai Lal was reigstered as Appeal No.400/547/ 2018-2019. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 15.11.2018 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the appeal filed by Mithai Lal was also allowed in part. Under the appellate order, petitioner was adjusted on plot no.355/787, 349 & 352. Against the appellate order dated 15.11.2018, one chak revision was filed by the petitioners and two more revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Revision filed by petitioner was registered as Revision No.1460 of 2022-2023, revision filed by Satya Narain and others was registered as Revision No.1447 of 2022-2023, revision filed by Mithai Lal was registered as Revision No.1461 of 2022-2023. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated

25.2.2023 allowed all the three revisions setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.11.2018. Mother of respondent nos.2 to 5 filed a Writ- B No.1930 of 2023 before this Court, which was allowed vide oeder dated 7.7.2023 setting aside the revisional order dated 25.2.2023 and matter was remitted back before the revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 7.7.2023, aforementioned three revisions were registered on their original number and heard afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.3.2025 dismissed all the three revisions recording finding that appellate order was passed in proper manner adjusting tenure holder on their original plots in view of the provisions contained under U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief: "issue suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the 3 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 impugned order dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure No.8) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur respondent no.1 in Revision No.1924/2024-25 (Lolarakh Nath vs. Shiromana and others), under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1953."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chak revision filed by petitioner has not been decided in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is small tenure holder, as such, he should be allotted chak on his original plot no.325 & 355/787 according to the share of the petitioner. He further submitted that the relief was granted in appeal in part, accordingly, chak revision was filed but Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the petitioner's revision on misconceived ground. He further submitted that improvement made by the petitioner on his chak but Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the improvement made by the petitioner over his chak and dismissed the revision in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned revisional order should be set aside and petitioner should be allotted chak on his original plot as claimed by him in the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 submitted that the petitioner was granted relief in chak appeal, as such, there was no occasion to file revision at the instance of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was adjusted on his original plot as for as possible. He further submitted that it is not possible that every tenure holder should be given chak including all his original plot in his chak. He 4 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 further submitted that the impugned revisional order has been passed taking into consideration about the fact that petitioner has mortgaged the plot no.349&352 to the bank, which has been allotted to him under the order of consolidation authorities, as such, it is not possible to further adjust the chak of the petitioner which was allotted to him under the appellate order including the plot no.349&352. He further submitted that even under the appellate order petitioner has been allotted one of his original plot out of two. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the chak proceeding has been decided by the consolidation authorities under the impugned order on the basis of chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision filed by the petitioner as well as other tenure holders.

7. Perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner which is annexed along with the writ petition demonstrates that the petitioner is original tenure holder of plot no.325 as well as 355/787 and under the appellate order petitioner has been adjusted on plot no.355/787 including plot no.349 as well as 352.

8. It is material to mention that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and petitioner has mortgaged plot no. 349 as well as 352 to the bank, as such, there is no illegality in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which appellate order has been maintained. It is also 5 WRIB No. 3941 of 2025 material to mention that Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the chak revision has considered the each and every aspect of the matter including the comparative hardship of every tenure holder, which is correct exercise of revisional jurisdiction in respect to the chak allotment proceeding.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order passed in allotment of chak proceeding.

10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. November 21, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)