J.D.C v. Counsel for

1. Heard Mr. Om Prarkash Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh as well as Mr. Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Jamna Das father of the petitioners was chak holder No. 123 and Ram Das father of respondent No. 3 was chak holder number 363. Jamna Das had expired accordingly in his place petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were substituted as his heirs and Ram Das had expired, accordingly, respondent No.3 was substituted. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks to Jamna Das including his original plot Nos. 309, 518, 217, 222 & 245. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer an objection under section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the 2 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 U.P.C.H. Act) was filed to the effect that exchange ratio of the certain plots proposed in his chak has been increased and some of the proposed plots are usar and their valuation has not been reduced as such the exchange ratio may be corrected. Father of the respondent No.3 had also filed an objection to the effect that chak proposed to him does not include his original holding and plot proposed to be allotted are less fertile, as well as valuation of the plot have been increased, which has resulted into decreasing his area lesser then permissible limit. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.05.1977 disposed of chak objection field by tenure holder. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 04.05.1977, father of respondent No.3 filed chak appeal before Settlement officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.830. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 07.11.1978. Petitioner No.2 filed a restoration application before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.1979. Against the appellate order revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H,. Act was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed vide order 01.12.1998 setting order dated 11.10.1979 rejecting the restoration application and remanded the matter before Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh on merit. In pursuance of remand order passed by the revisional court, Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 4.8.81 allowed the appeal filed by father of respondent No. 3. Against appellate order dated 4.8.1981 petitioners filed a revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No.

893. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed in part vide order dated 12.3.82 and the case was remanded back to the Settlement 3 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter afresh. After remand order Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has decided appeal vide order dated 13.10.86 allowing the appeal in part. Against appellate order dated 13.10.86 revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner which was registered as Revision No.1765. Against the appellate order dated 13.10.86 father of respondent No.3-Ram Das has also filed revision which was registered as Revision No.1717. The aforesaid revisions were also heard together and vide dated 14.7.88 revision filed by father of respondent no.3 was allowed and revision filed by petitioners was dismissed. Hence this Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following Relief:- "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.07.1988 (Anbnexure-9) passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 13.10.1986 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No.2."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that chak allotted by consolidation authorities to the petitioners are not in accordance with the provisions contained under section 19 (1) (e) of the Act, as such the impugned order passed by consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that three chaks allotted to the petitioners by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at the distance of 2-3 km. as such same cannot be irrigated by the tube-well constructed by petitioners in their plot No. 222, which is violation of the provisions contained under section 19 (1) (f) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that plot No. 1507, 1508, 1538 allotted by respondent No.2 in the chak of petitioners were valued at the rate of 11-00 annas, 8.00 annas and 11.00 annas but respondent No.1 has committed illegality in increasing the rate of 4 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 valuation of these plots to 13.00 annas, 10.00 annas and 13.00 annas. He submitted that under the impugned orders shape of the petitioners' chak has been made irregular as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and stage of Consolidation Officer should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, learned cousnel appearing for the private respondents submitted that under the impugned orders both parties have been adjusted according to the provisions contained under section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act as for as possible, as such no further interference is required against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities. They further submitted that impugned orders were passed in the year 1986/88 and no interim order was granted by this Court, as such the adjustment which has been made by the consolidation authorities about 39 years before should not be disturbed by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They submitted that in pursuance of the impugned orders of Consolidation authorities private respondents are maintaining their agriculture plot by investing the amount in the plot in question. They submitted that writ petiton should be dismissed.

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

6. There is no dispute about the fact that in the allotment of chak proceeding, the consolidation authorities have passed impugned orders adjusting both the parties.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the mater perusal of section 19(1) (e), 19 (1)(f) and 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:- 5 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely, - …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ... (e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding : Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation : Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three; (f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots, originally held by him there; and (g) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units."

8. Perusal of Section 19(1) (e), 19 (1)(f) and 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act as quoted above fully demonstrate that tenure holder as far as possible allotted a compact area and allotment should be made on the plot on which private source of irrigation is existing as well as allotment should be in conformity with the process of rectangulation.

9. In the instant matter, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have exercised their jurisdiction by adjusting both the parties on their original plots according to their share 6 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 considering the provisions of secton-19 of U.P.C.H. Act as far as possible which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1986 and the appellate order has been maintained by Joint Director of Consolidation in the year 1988.

10. The adjustment/ allotment of chak made about 39 years before should not be disturbed after such a long period as the parties are cultivating/ using their plot for last 39 years under the impugned orders passed by Consolidation Authorities in the allotment of chak proceeding.

11. No interference is required in the matter.

12. The Writ Petition is dismissed, accordingly. October 14, 2025 PS* (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Om Prarkash Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh as well as Mr. Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Jamna Das father of the petitioners was chak holder No. 123 and Ram Das father of respondent No. 3 was chak holder number 363. Jamna Das had expired accordingly in his place petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were substituted as his heirs and Ram Das had expired, accordingly, respondent No.3 was substituted. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed three chaks to Jamna Das including his original plot Nos. 309, 518, 217, 222 & 245. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer an objection under section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the 2 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 U.P.C.H. Act) was filed to the effect that exchange ratio of the certain plots proposed in his chak has been increased and some of the proposed plots are usar and their valuation has not been reduced as such the exchange ratio may be corrected. Father of the respondent No.3 had also filed an objection to the effect that chak proposed to him does not include his original holding and plot proposed to be allotted are less fertile, as well as valuation of the plot have been increased, which has resulted into decreasing his area lesser then permissible limit. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.05.1977 disposed of chak objection field by tenure holder. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 04.05.1977, father of respondent No.3 filed chak appeal before Settlement officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.830. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 07.11.1978. Petitioner No.2 filed a restoration application before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.1979. Against the appellate order revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H,. Act was filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed vide order 01.12.1998 setting order dated 11.10.1979 rejecting the restoration application and remanded the matter before Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh on merit. In pursuance of remand order passed by the revisional court, Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 4.8.81 allowed the appeal filed by father of respondent No. 3. Against appellate order dated 4.8.1981 petitioners filed a revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No.

893. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed in part vide order dated 12.3.82 and the case was remanded back to the Settlement 3 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 Officer of Consolidation to decide the matter afresh. After remand order Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has decided appeal vide order dated 13.10.86 allowing the appeal in part. Against appellate order dated 13.10.86 revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner which was registered as Revision No.1765. Against the appellate order dated 13.10.86 father of respondent No.3-Ram Das has also filed revision which was registered as Revision No.1717. The aforesaid revisions were also heard together and vide dated 14.7.88 revision filed by father of respondent no.3 was allowed and revision filed by petitioners was dismissed. Hence this Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following Relief:- "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.07.1988 (Anbnexure-9) passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 13.10.1986 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No.2."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that chak allotted by consolidation authorities to the petitioners are not in accordance with the provisions contained under section 19 (1) (e) of the Act, as such the impugned order passed by consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that three chaks allotted to the petitioners by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at the distance of 2-3 km. as such same cannot be irrigated by the tube-well constructed by petitioners in their plot No. 222, which is violation of the provisions contained under section 19 (1) (f) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that plot No. 1507, 1508, 1538 allotted by respondent No.2 in the chak of petitioners were valued at the rate of 11-00 annas, 8.00 annas and 11.00 annas but respondent No.1 has committed illegality in increasing the rate of 4 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 valuation of these plots to 13.00 annas, 10.00 annas and 13.00 annas. He submitted that under the impugned orders shape of the petitioners' chak has been made irregular as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and stage of Consolidation Officer should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, learned cousnel appearing for the private respondents submitted that under the impugned orders both parties have been adjusted according to the provisions contained under section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act as for as possible, as such no further interference is required against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities. They further submitted that impugned orders were passed in the year 1986/88 and no interim order was granted by this Court, as such the adjustment which has been made by the consolidation authorities about 39 years before should not be disturbed by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They submitted that in pursuance of the impugned orders of Consolidation authorities private respondents are maintaining their agriculture plot by investing the amount in the plot in question. They submitted that writ petiton should be dismissed.

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

6. There is no dispute about the fact that in the allotment of chak proceeding, the consolidation authorities have passed impugned orders adjusting both the parties.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the mater perusal of section 19(1) (e), 19 (1)(f) and 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:- 5 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely, - …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ... (e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding : Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation : Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three; (f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots, originally held by him there; and (g) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units."

8. Perusal of Section 19(1) (e), 19 (1)(f) and 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act as quoted above fully demonstrate that tenure holder as far as possible allotted a compact area and allotment should be made on the plot on which private source of irrigation is existing as well as allotment should be in conformity with the process of rectangulation.

9. In the instant matter, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have exercised their jurisdiction by adjusting both the parties on their original plots according to their share 6 WRIB No. 14414 of 1988 considering the provisions of secton-19 of U.P.C.H. Act as far as possible which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1986 and the appellate order has been maintained by Joint Director of Consolidation in the year 1988.

10. The adjustment/ allotment of chak made about 39 years before should not be disturbed after such a long period as the parties are cultivating/ using their plot for last 39 years under the impugned orders passed by Consolidation Authorities in the allotment of chak proceeding.

11. No interference is required in the matter.

12. The Writ Petition is dismissed, accordingly. October 14, 2025 PS* (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad