Rambabu vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And

respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 18, and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 17.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during consolidation operations, objections were filed by the petitioner, stating that Gata No. 393 which originally belonged to the petitioner have several trees and also a boring existed on the said land. The Consolidation Officer duly considered the objections of the petitioner and allotted him two chaks alongwith the main road. It seems that petitioner was not aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.03.2009, but an appeal was filed by respondent no. 6 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

3. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 6 by means of order dated 27.02.2020 and gave chaks to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 on the main road. He was of the view that by giving both persons access to the main road would be equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that respondent no. 6 have been granted chak behind the chaks of the petitioner and he did not have any access to the main road. Accordingly, fresh chaks were carved out length wise having access to the main road. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 27.02.2020, preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which revision has 2 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 been rejected by means of impugned order dated 29.08.2024, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, has affirmed the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) after noticing that notification under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued in the meanwhile.

5. While assailing all the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that consolidation authorities should have duly considered that standing trees and boring should have been granted in favour of petitioner and by ignoring the same the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and deserve interference.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the ground which are relevant for deciding the objections, are provided in Section 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. He further submits that the Consolidation Officer had granted petitioner the land on the main road and petitioner by not filing appeal against order of Consolidation Officer had given up his claim with regard to trees and boring and accordingly on the request of private respondents the land was re-carved length wise and both the parties were given access to the main road.

7. It is after the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the petitioner has again staked his claim for the trees and boring before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which at that stage was not maintainable, considering the fact that his claim already stood decided by order of the Consolidation Officer and attained finality and no appeal was preferred by the petitioner.

8. Considering the rival submissions it is noticed that though initially petitioner has claimed to be allotted chak on the main road alongwith trees and boring, but in the given circumstances the Consolidation Officer has granted him chak only along main road, while the private respondent was given entire chak behind the chak of petitioner without any access to the main road. 3 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025

9. In the aforesaid circumstance, an appeal was filed by the private respondents on which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by means of order dated 27.02.2020, while allowing the appeal had re-carved the chak so that both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent no. 6 have got chaks on the main road.

10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision. This Court is of the considered view that as far as possible though the authorities consider the claim of the chak holders and though initially petitioner was given chak alongwith the main road, but the case of respondent no. 6 was also considered by the appellate authority and accordingly, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 were given chaks having access to the main road.

11. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:- "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely, (a)...… (b)...… (c)...… (d)...… (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."

12. From reading of Section 19(1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements. 4 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025

13. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant. in Section 19(1)(f) enjoins upon “This provision contained 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 plot of his largest part of holding. In making allotment of chaks equity amongst various tenure holders has got to be adjusted, and, as such, if it is not possible to include some of the original land of the tenure holder in the allotted chak; then the allotment of chak cannot be said to be invalid or without jurisdiction, on the ground that no plot of original holding of the tenure holder has been included in his chak although a chak of compact area has been allotted at a place and in the vicinity where the tenure holder holds the largest part of his holding. The requirement of allotting original plot of the holding to the tenure holder in his chak has been mandated only in Section 19(1)(f), according to which, if there exists private source of irrigation or other improvement on the plot in question, then it has got to be allotted in the chak of the tenure holder. The allotment of chak in violation of the provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) would certainly make allotment illegal being violative of specific provisions. But in my opinion, an allotment of a ‘Uran’ Chak cannot be taken to be illegal and without jurisdiction if such a chak has been allotted at a place quite near the original land held by the tenure holder in its vicinity and not excessively exceeding the valuation of his original plots in that sector. ”

14. In the above case, this Court held that in view of the provision of Section 19(1)(e) the consolidation authorities are required to allot as far as possible a compact area to the tenure holder at a place where he holds the largest part of the holding and the judgment also says that the aforesaid provision can be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder including therein some plot of his original holding. 5 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 In the judgment passed in the case of Mukut Nathi v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur; 1998 R.D. 148, this Court held in paragraph 5 as under:- “The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation have carved out the chak of the petitioner in such a way that its shape was rectangular and was leading up to the P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation for the first time carved out a chak in rectangular shape running from north to south, with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the land towards P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any finding as to whether under the sale deed any specified portion was sold to the petitioner. In case the petitioner was sold a portion which did not lead up to P.W.D. road, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be justified not to give such portion to the petitioner but if this portion was not specified or he was given a portion which leads up to the P.W.D. road, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation will not be valid and justified.”

15. In respect to cases where the interference in the allotment of chaks is permissible under Article 226, the issue has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition (Cons.) No. 5001 of 1983 (Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & others) decided on 24.09.2014 and in para 29 to 32, this Court has said as under:- "29. It is not in dispute that the allotment of Chaks is to be made taking into consideration principles laid down under Section 19 of Act 1953. These principles have been considered by this Court in Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1985 AWC 604 All. In para 4 thereof, this Court has said that allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the principles, namely, (i) every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding (ii) the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to valuation of the plot originally held by him and (iii) every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The Court further held that the area held by tenture holder prior to start of consolidation proceedings, is relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder, varies by more than 25% or not, as contained in the first proviso of Section 19 of the Act, 1953.

30. In Dr. A.N. Srivastava Vs. DDC 1982 LLJ 42 Hon'ble K. N. Misra J. referring to Section 19(1)(e) of Act 1953 said: "The petitioners under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act were entitled to get a chak at a place where they had held largest part of their original holding. The words 'as for as possible' used in the said sub- section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily ignoring the provisions contained therein. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while altering the chak of the petitioners should have assigned reasons for not making allotment to the petitioners on the aforesaid plots Nos. 1082 and 1087 which were admittedly largest part of their holding. In my opinion the words as far as possible used in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act require the provisions 6 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 contained therein to be followed unless their compliance cannot be made for specific reasons to be assigned for it" (emphasis added)

31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others 1985 LLJ 330 and the Court further said: "In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act which lays down that every tenure-holder, as for as possible, should be allotted a Chak at a place where he held his largest holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in case it is not possible, then the reasons should have been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to the petitioners on their plot. The words "as far as possible" used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder." (emphasis added)

32. In Doodh Nath Vs. DDC and others 1988(6)LCD 453 the Court held, if a tenure holder has his Chak with private source of irrigation, allotment of chak must be weighed so as to keep intact private source of irrigation of such person. The Court said that there cannot be any legal justification for refusing to allot a Chak to a tenure holder at a particular place, where he had held his private source of irrigation on the ground that his sons or other relations may have been allotted a chak in its vicinity. Every tenure holder would be entitled to get allotment of chak at a place where he could be allotted chak, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The tenure holder would be entitled to get near village Abadi so much of land which he originally held at that place and also at the place of his private source of irrigation. The Court also said that undoubtedly, while deciding objection filed by a tenure holder against proposed allotment of chaks, equities are to be adjusted taking into consideration location of original land-holding of the other tenure holders whose chaks are likely to be affected while determining the objection. But while doing so, just and appropriate claim put forth by the tenure holder cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is a big tenure holder as compared to the opposite parties or that his son or some other relation has been allotted chak near the place where the objector claims an allotment of chak as against his original holding. The Court added a few words of caution for the consolidation authorities, in the following manner: "In the matter of allotment of chaks a care is to be taken by the authorities to allot chak to the tenure holders to which they are entitled as against their original holdings. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. Thus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to feel hesitant in interfering with the impugned orders which are found to be unwarranted in law and facts of the case, merely on the ground that the writ petition could not be taken up earlier for disposal. 7 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 The impugned orders cannot be left to survive merely on the delay in disposal of the writ petition for no fault of the petitioner."

16. Further, as per the judgment passed in the case of Raisa Begum (supra), placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite, the original tenure holder is entitled to road side land. In this case, road side land was provided to the purchaser of land, which was purchased during consolidation proceedings.

17. In the judgment passed in the case of Ram Badan (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite, this Court after considering the observations made in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 1980, Ramadhar Singh vs. Depurty Director of Consolidation reported in (2009) 106 RD 772 and Sanjay vs. Depurty Director of Consolidation reported in (2013) 121 RD 561, in para 15 observed as under:- "15. The consensus of principle that emerges from the decisions in Ram Prasad (supra), Ramadhar Singh (supra) and Sanjay (supra) valuable roadside land that is the original holding of a tenure holder, is to be declared chak out or allotted to him as part of his Chak, unless it be imperative on account of some compelling circumstances that may require some marginal departure from the Rule. There is no finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or the Settlement Officer that allotment of the entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old) to the petitioner, that is part of the petitioner's original holding lies in front of the third respondent's Abadi and would cause the third respondent some great inconvenience or irreparable injury as spoken of in the decision of this Court in Ram Shanker (supra). The remark of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that though it is not appropriate to include any part of this plot in the third respondent's chak as it is not part of his original holding, considering his Abadi, the same may not be disturbed as ordered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is flawed. To this, is added a remark that, therefore, it would not be proper to remove the part of the plot in dispute included in the Chak of the third respondent. For one, it is not reason enough to deprive the petitioner of a substantial part of his valuable roadside land in favour of the third respondent. Moreover, a look at the confirmed consolidation map shows that between one part of old Khasra No. 60/3 (now renumbered as 369) and included in the third respondent's chak and the third respondent's Abadi, there is a sector road running through. This confirmed map is on record as part of Annexure No. SRA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 18th July, 2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no dispute about this."

18. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hansraj v. Mewalal and others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 682, till holding is divided in accordance with law, every co-sharer of plot has right on the holding and chak(s) should be carved out in a manner so that everyone gets chak on pitch road. The relevant paragraphs of the Hansraj Vs. Mewalal (supra) are quoted herein below :- “13. It is not the case of any of the parties that holding was partitioned by an order obtained under Section 176. All the co-sharers had right in the 8 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 plot in question and holdings were not partitioned as per law. The appellant was fully justified in claiming right of allotment on a portion of plot on the pitch road. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed the chaks to the parties in a manner so that everyone gets chak on the pitch road. The Consolidation Officer has reversed the allotment of chaks by putting the appellant on the southern side away from the road and allocating the chaks on the pitch road in favour of the respondents which order was rightly reversed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was an equitable order by which Ram Milan who was given chak including the area where he was constructing the house on the north- eastern portion of the plot. The appellant was allotted an area comprising his pumping set and also by allocating chak, part of which was on pitch road, other respondents were allotted the chak in such a manner that everyone got their chak on the pitch road. There was no justifiable reason for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director, Consolidation. It is to be noticed that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director while passing their orders have also inspected the spot and the orders passed by them were on the basis of spot inspection. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India committed error in allowing the writ petition by restoring the order of the Consolidation Officer which was an inequitable order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, equity was adjusted by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in making the chak in the manner that chak of every co- sharer was on the pitch road which order needed no interference by the High Court. The appellant filed a review which too was dismissed by the High Court on 20-1-2014 [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16543]

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that orders [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2013 SCC OnLine All 14599] , [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16543] of the High Court are unsustainable and are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed, the judgment dated 25-7-2013 [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2013 SCC OnLine All 14599] as well as the order dated 20-1-2014 [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16543] are set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed. No costs.”

19. This Court do not find any error in the discretionary exercise by the 9 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 appellate authority as well as revisional authority. Apart from the fact that petitioner was satisfied by the order of Consolidation Officer and had chosen not to stake his claim to the trees and boring. With regard to existence of boring and trees on original holding, the land would have been adequately valued and benefit of which would have already been passed on to the petitioner and therefore in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders.

20. In the light of above, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. December 9, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 18, and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 17.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during consolidation operations, objections were filed by the petitioner, stating that Gata No. 393 which originally belonged to the petitioner have several trees and also a boring existed on the said land. The Consolidation Officer duly considered the objections of the petitioner and allotted him two chaks alongwith the main road. It seems that petitioner was not aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.03.2009, but an appeal was filed by respondent no. 6 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

3. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 6 by means of order dated 27.02.2020 and gave chaks to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 on the main road. He was of the view that by giving both persons access to the main road would be equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that respondent no. 6 have been granted chak behind the chaks of the petitioner and he did not have any access to the main road. Accordingly, fresh chaks were carved out length wise having access to the main road. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 27.02.2020, preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which revision has 2 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 been rejected by means of impugned order dated 29.08.2024, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, has affirmed the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) after noticing that notification under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued in the meanwhile.

5. While assailing all the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that consolidation authorities should have duly considered that standing trees and boring should have been granted in favour of petitioner and by ignoring the same the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and deserve interference.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the ground which are relevant for deciding the objections, are provided in Section 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. He further submits that the Consolidation Officer had granted petitioner the land on the main road and petitioner by not filing appeal against order of Consolidation Officer had given up his claim with regard to trees and boring and accordingly on the request of private respondents the land was re-carved length wise and both the parties were given access to the main road.

7. It is after the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the petitioner has again staked his claim for the trees and boring before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which at that stage was not maintainable, considering the fact that his claim already stood decided by order of the Consolidation Officer and attained finality and no appeal was preferred by the petitioner.

8. Considering the rival submissions it is noticed that though initially petitioner has claimed to be allotted chak on the main road alongwith trees and boring, but in the given circumstances the Consolidation Officer has granted him chak only along main road, while the private respondent was given entire chak behind the chak of petitioner without any access to the main road. 3 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025

9. In the aforesaid circumstance, an appeal was filed by the private respondents on which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by means of order dated 27.02.2020, while allowing the appeal had re-carved the chak so that both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent no. 6 have got chaks on the main road.

10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision. This Court is of the considered view that as far as possible though the authorities consider the claim of the chak holders and though initially petitioner was given chak alongwith the main road, but the case of respondent no. 6 was also considered by the appellate authority and accordingly, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 were given chaks having access to the main road.

11. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:- "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely, (a)...… (b)...… (c)...… (d)...… (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."

12. From reading of Section 19(1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements. 4 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025

13. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant. in Section 19(1)(f) enjoins upon “This provision contained 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 plot of his largest part of holding. In making allotment of chaks equity amongst various tenure holders has got to be adjusted, and, as such, if it is not possible to include some of the original land of the tenure holder in the allotted chak; then the allotment of chak cannot be said to be invalid or without jurisdiction, on the ground that no plot of original holding of the tenure holder has been included in his chak although a chak of compact area has been allotted at a place and in the vicinity where the tenure holder holds the largest part of his holding. The requirement of allotting original plot of the holding to the tenure holder in his chak has been mandated only in Section 19(1)(f), according to which, if there exists private source of irrigation or other improvement on the plot in question, then it has got to be allotted in the chak of the tenure holder. The allotment of chak in violation of the provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) would certainly make allotment illegal being violative of specific provisions. But in my opinion, an allotment of a ‘Uran’ Chak cannot be taken to be illegal and without jurisdiction if such a chak has been allotted at a place quite near the original land held by the tenure holder in its vicinity and not excessively exceeding the valuation of his original plots in that sector. ”

14. In the above case, this Court held that in view of the provision of Section 19(1)(e) the consolidation authorities are required to allot as far as possible a compact area to the tenure holder at a place where he holds the largest part of the holding and the judgment also says that the aforesaid provision can be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder including therein some plot of his original holding. 5 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 In the judgment passed in the case of Mukut Nathi v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur; 1998 R.D. 148, this Court held in paragraph 5 as under:- “The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation have carved out the chak of the petitioner in such a way that its shape was rectangular and was leading up to the P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation for the first time carved out a chak in rectangular shape running from north to south, with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the land towards P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any finding as to whether under the sale deed any specified portion was sold to the petitioner. In case the petitioner was sold a portion which did not lead up to P.W.D. road, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be justified not to give such portion to the petitioner but if this portion was not specified or he was given a portion which leads up to the P.W.D. road, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation will not be valid and justified.”

15. In respect to cases where the interference in the allotment of chaks is permissible under Article 226, the issue has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition (Cons.) No. 5001 of 1983 (Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & others) decided on 24.09.2014 and in para 29 to 32, this Court has said as under:- "29. It is not in dispute that the allotment of Chaks is to be made taking into consideration principles laid down under Section 19 of Act 1953. These principles have been considered by this Court in Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1985 AWC 604 All. In para 4 thereof, this Court has said that allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the principles, namely, (i) every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding (ii) the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to valuation of the plot originally held by him and (iii) every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The Court further held that the area held by tenture holder prior to start of consolidation proceedings, is relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder, varies by more than 25% or not, as contained in the first proviso of Section 19 of the Act, 1953.

30. In Dr. A.N. Srivastava Vs. DDC 1982 LLJ 42 Hon'ble K. N. Misra J. referring to Section 19(1)(e) of Act 1953 said: "The petitioners under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act were entitled to get a chak at a place where they had held largest part of their original holding. The words 'as for as possible' used in the said sub- section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily ignoring the provisions contained therein. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while altering the chak of the petitioners should have assigned reasons for not making allotment to the petitioners on the aforesaid plots Nos. 1082 and 1087 which were admittedly largest part of their holding. In my opinion the words as far as possible used in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act require the provisions 6 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 contained therein to be followed unless their compliance cannot be made for specific reasons to be assigned for it" (emphasis added)

31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others 1985 LLJ 330 and the Court further said: "In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act which lays down that every tenure-holder, as for as possible, should be allotted a Chak at a place where he held his largest holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in case it is not possible, then the reasons should have been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to the petitioners on their plot. The words "as far as possible" used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder." (emphasis added)

32. In Doodh Nath Vs. DDC and others 1988(6)LCD 453 the Court held, if a tenure holder has his Chak with private source of irrigation, allotment of chak must be weighed so as to keep intact private source of irrigation of such person. The Court said that there cannot be any legal justification for refusing to allot a Chak to a tenure holder at a particular place, where he had held his private source of irrigation on the ground that his sons or other relations may have been allotted a chak in its vicinity. Every tenure holder would be entitled to get allotment of chak at a place where he could be allotted chak, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The tenure holder would be entitled to get near village Abadi so much of land which he originally held at that place and also at the place of his private source of irrigation. The Court also said that undoubtedly, while deciding objection filed by a tenure holder against proposed allotment of chaks, equities are to be adjusted taking into consideration location of original land-holding of the other tenure holders whose chaks are likely to be affected while determining the objection. But while doing so, just and appropriate claim put forth by the tenure holder cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is a big tenure holder as compared to the opposite parties or that his son or some other relation has been allotted chak near the place where the objector claims an allotment of chak as against his original holding. The Court added a few words of caution for the consolidation authorities, in the following manner: "In the matter of allotment of chaks a care is to be taken by the authorities to allot chak to the tenure holders to which they are entitled as against their original holdings. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. Thus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to feel hesitant in interfering with the impugned orders which are found to be unwarranted in law and facts of the case, merely on the ground that the writ petition could not be taken up earlier for disposal. 7 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 The impugned orders cannot be left to survive merely on the delay in disposal of the writ petition for no fault of the petitioner."

16. Further, as per the judgment passed in the case of Raisa Begum (supra), placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite, the original tenure holder is entitled to road side land. In this case, road side land was provided to the purchaser of land, which was purchased during consolidation proceedings.

17. In the judgment passed in the case of Ram Badan (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite, this Court after considering the observations made in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 1980, Ramadhar Singh vs. Depurty Director of Consolidation reported in (2009) 106 RD 772 and Sanjay vs. Depurty Director of Consolidation reported in (2013) 121 RD 561, in para 15 observed as under:- "15. The consensus of principle that emerges from the decisions in Ram Prasad (supra), Ramadhar Singh (supra) and Sanjay (supra) valuable roadside land that is the original holding of a tenure holder, is to be declared chak out or allotted to him as part of his Chak, unless it be imperative on account of some compelling circumstances that may require some marginal departure from the Rule. There is no finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or the Settlement Officer that allotment of the entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old) to the petitioner, that is part of the petitioner's original holding lies in front of the third respondent's Abadi and would cause the third respondent some great inconvenience or irreparable injury as spoken of in the decision of this Court in Ram Shanker (supra). The remark of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that though it is not appropriate to include any part of this plot in the third respondent's chak as it is not part of his original holding, considering his Abadi, the same may not be disturbed as ordered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is flawed. To this, is added a remark that, therefore, it would not be proper to remove the part of the plot in dispute included in the Chak of the third respondent. For one, it is not reason enough to deprive the petitioner of a substantial part of his valuable roadside land in favour of the third respondent. Moreover, a look at the confirmed consolidation map shows that between one part of old Khasra No. 60/3 (now renumbered as 369) and included in the third respondent's chak and the third respondent's Abadi, there is a sector road running through. This confirmed map is on record as part of Annexure No. SRA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 18th July, 2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no dispute about this."

18. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hansraj v. Mewalal and others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 682, till holding is divided in accordance with law, every co-sharer of plot has right on the holding and chak(s) should be carved out in a manner so that everyone gets chak on pitch road. The relevant paragraphs of the Hansraj Vs. Mewalal (supra) are quoted herein below :- “13. It is not the case of any of the parties that holding was partitioned by an order obtained under Section 176. All the co-sharers had right in the 8 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 plot in question and holdings were not partitioned as per law. The appellant was fully justified in claiming right of allotment on a portion of plot on the pitch road. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed the chaks to the parties in a manner so that everyone gets chak on the pitch road. The Consolidation Officer has reversed the allotment of chaks by putting the appellant on the southern side away from the road and allocating the chaks on the pitch road in favour of the respondents which order was rightly reversed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was an equitable order by which Ram Milan who was given chak including the area where he was constructing the house on the north- eastern portion of the plot. The appellant was allotted an area comprising his pumping set and also by allocating chak, part of which was on pitch road, other respondents were allotted the chak in such a manner that everyone got their chak on the pitch road. There was no justifiable reason for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director, Consolidation. It is to be noticed that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director while passing their orders have also inspected the spot and the orders passed by them were on the basis of spot inspection. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India committed error in allowing the writ petition by restoring the order of the Consolidation Officer which was an inequitable order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, equity was adjusted by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in making the chak in the manner that chak of every co- sharer was on the pitch road which order needed no interference by the High Court. The appellant filed a review which too was dismissed by the High Court on 20-1-2014 [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16543]

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that orders [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2013 SCC OnLine All 14599] , [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16543] of the High Court are unsustainable and are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed, the judgment dated 25-7-2013 [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2013 SCC OnLine All 14599] as well as the order dated 20-1-2014 [Meva Lal v. Director of Consolidation, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16543] are set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed. No costs.”

19. This Court do not find any error in the discretionary exercise by the 9 WRIB No. 1157 of 2025 appellate authority as well as revisional authority. Apart from the fact that petitioner was satisfied by the order of Consolidation Officer and had chosen not to stake his claim to the trees and boring. With regard to existence of boring and trees on original holding, the land would have been adequately valued and benefit of which would have already been passed on to the petitioner and therefore in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders.

20. In the light of above, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. December 9, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench