Mahipal v. …

1. Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during consolidation operations, the private respondents were allotted chak on the original holdings of the petitioner situated at Gata Nos. 71/2, 72, 74/1, 75, 110, total area 0.424 hectares.

4. Grievance of petitioner is that original holdings of the private respondents were valued at 70 Paise and therefore large tract of land has been given in the holdings of the petitioner where infact their holdings should have been valued 30Paise, due to which they were entitled to lesser tract of land on the holdings of the petitioner. 1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case their valuation is fixed at 30Paise then entire allotment of petitioner would have been on his original holding. The objections of the petitioner regarding valuation of original holdings of private respondents was duly considered by the Consolidation Officer and rejected his objections by order dated 14.07.2019. While allowing the contentions of the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer returned finding that Eucalyptus trees were standing on the said land and the said land is adjacent to the boundary of the town and therefore, in such circumstances valuation of the land though was not of high quality, but still was valued higher, because of its location, and therefore, Consolidation Officer allowed the objections preferred by the petitioner and reduced the valuation of the land of private respondents from 70 Paise to 60 Paise and partly allowed the objections of petitioner.

6. The private respondents thereafter, preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. While allowing the said appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was of the view that handing over of the plots has already taken place and the petitioner has not filed his objections within the time prescribed. Subsequently, revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has rejected the said revision and confirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated

08.12.2022. Accordingly, in the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation dated

08.12.2022 and 22.04.2025, respectively. 2 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that perusal of Rule 154 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual, would indicate that whenever allotment is made in another chak, objections regarding valuation of the said land can be raised by the concerned chak number, once such right has been provided for under Rule 154 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual, then both the authorities below have committed manifest error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding valuation of the original holdings of the private respondents.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that in the present case, infact it is the private respondents who have been allotted chak on the original holding of the petitioner. It is further submitted that reading of Rule 154 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual would indicate that it is only where allotment is made to a "chakdar" on any holding, then he had right to challenge the valuation of the holding who which he is allotted, because, such valuation will directly effect his rights to the area of the land to which he is legally entitled.

9. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that apart from the above there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner has also been allotted chak in accordance to his valuation and there is no dispute raised by the petitioner in this regard and accordingly, petitioner would not be effected by the valuation of a third party who have been allotted chak of private respondent.

10. Learned Standing Counsel has placed its reliance on the case of Ajmer Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2010) 109 RD 112, where it has been held that variation of area beyond 25% can only be done for cogent reasons and in this case the cogent reason 3 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866 being the change in valuation of the land. The relevant paragraph is quoted below: “7. Perusal of the order impugned makes it apparent that although some reasons are sought to be mentioned for passing me said order but it can be said that the same has travelled beyond statutory mandate as contained in section 19 of the Act which provides that there should be, no variation of area by more than 25% except for cogent reasons and that too by the permission of the Director of Consolidation. It is pertinent to state here that equity is to be adjusted by the revisional Court by keeping in mind the balance of convenience of parties concerned. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, being last Court in the matter, has to adhere to the balance of convenience and equitable aspect by giving serious considerations and by doing that adjustment in the manner that may suit both the parties as per law. In the opinion of this Court, that Deputy Director or Consolidation has passed the order impugned without keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect and ignoring the statutory provisions of law as contained in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and thus the matters needs to be adjudicated a fresh by Revisional Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall consider the respective claims of the parties, keeping in mind that spot situation as well as statutory provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.”

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. For ready reference, Rule 154 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual, is quoted herein below :- Þ154- ;fn xkVk nwljs d`’kd dk gS] rks vkifRrdrkZ pdnkj mlds fofue; vuqikr ds izfr vo”; gh vkifRr dj ldrk gS] D;ksafd fofue; vuqikr fu/kkZj.k ds le; mls, vius ewy xkVksa ds vykok] vU; xkVksa ds fofue; vuqikr dk iwjk Kku ugha gks ikrkA okLro esa] mls mu xkVksa ds ewY; dk vuqeku rHkh yxk ikrk gS tc esa mlds pd esa ns fn;s tkrs gSaaA vr% ;g vfuok;Z gS fd mls bl le; nwljs xkVksa ds fofue; vuqikr ds izfr vkifRr izLrqr djus dk volj feysAß

13. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a person who has been allotted chak can assail the valuation of the land 4 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866 of such allotment made in his favour, but the person whose land has been allotted cannot turn around and challenge the valuation of the land of the person who has been allotted chak on his holdings. Firstly, the person whose land has been allotted does not have any right to assail such finding while on the other hand person who has been allotted particular chak has right to assail the valuation of the land which has been allotted to him. Taking any other view would be to unnecessarily enlarge the area of litigation and confer right to assail the validity of valuation even in those matters where substantial rights of the person concerned are not at all effected. However, at the appropriate stage such objections could have been raised, but, in the present case, no such objections have been raised.

14. Accordingly, it is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that no infirmity has been committed by the authorities below. Apart from the above, this Court finds that petitioner does not dispute the allotment of chaks in his favour and therefore, this Court do not find any ground for interfering in the matter in exercise of power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

15. Present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) December 5, 2025 A. Verma 5 ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during consolidation operations, the private respondents were allotted chak on the original holdings of the petitioner situated at Gata Nos. 71/2, 72, 74/1, 75, 110, total area 0.424 hectares.

4. Grievance of petitioner is that original holdings of the private respondents were valued at 70 Paise and therefore large tract of land has been given in the holdings of the petitioner where infact their holdings should have been valued 30Paise, due to which they were entitled to lesser tract of land on the holdings of the petitioner. 1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case their valuation is fixed at 30Paise then entire allotment of petitioner would have been on his original holding. The objections of the petitioner regarding valuation of original holdings of private respondents was duly considered by the Consolidation Officer and rejected his objections by order dated 14.07.2019. While allowing the contentions of the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer returned finding that Eucalyptus trees were standing on the said land and the said land is adjacent to the boundary of the town and therefore, in such circumstances valuation of the land though was not of high quality, but still was valued higher, because of its location, and therefore, Consolidation Officer allowed the objections preferred by the petitioner and reduced the valuation of the land of private respondents from 70 Paise to 60 Paise and partly allowed the objections of petitioner.

6. The private respondents thereafter, preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. While allowing the said appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was of the view that handing over of the plots has already taken place and the petitioner has not filed his objections within the time prescribed. Subsequently, revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has rejected the said revision and confirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated

08.12.2022. Accordingly, in the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation dated

08.12.2022 and 22.04.2025, respectively. 2 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that perusal of Rule 154 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual, would indicate that whenever allotment is made in another chak, objections regarding valuation of the said land can be raised by the concerned chak number, once such right has been provided for under Rule 154 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual, then both the authorities below have committed manifest error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding valuation of the original holdings of the private respondents.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that in the present case, infact it is the private respondents who have been allotted chak on the original holding of the petitioner. It is further submitted that reading of Rule 154 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual would indicate that it is only where allotment is made to a "chakdar" on any holding, then he had right to challenge the valuation of the holding who which he is allotted, because, such valuation will directly effect his rights to the area of the land to which he is legally entitled.

9. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that apart from the above there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner has also been allotted chak in accordance to his valuation and there is no dispute raised by the petitioner in this regard and accordingly, petitioner would not be effected by the valuation of a third party who have been allotted chak of private respondent.

10. Learned Standing Counsel has placed its reliance on the case of Ajmer Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2010) 109 RD 112, where it has been held that variation of area beyond 25% can only be done for cogent reasons and in this case the cogent reason 3 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866 being the change in valuation of the land. The relevant paragraph is quoted below: “7. Perusal of the order impugned makes it apparent that although some reasons are sought to be mentioned for passing me said order but it can be said that the same has travelled beyond statutory mandate as contained in section 19 of the Act which provides that there should be, no variation of area by more than 25% except for cogent reasons and that too by the permission of the Director of Consolidation. It is pertinent to state here that equity is to be adjusted by the revisional Court by keeping in mind the balance of convenience of parties concerned. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, being last Court in the matter, has to adhere to the balance of convenience and equitable aspect by giving serious considerations and by doing that adjustment in the manner that may suit both the parties as per law. In the opinion of this Court, that Deputy Director or Consolidation has passed the order impugned without keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect and ignoring the statutory provisions of law as contained in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and thus the matters needs to be adjudicated a fresh by Revisional Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall consider the respective claims of the parties, keeping in mind that spot situation as well as statutory provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.”

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. For ready reference, Rule 154 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual, is quoted herein below :- Þ154- ;fn xkVk nwljs d`’kd dk gS] rks vkifRrdrkZ pdnkj mlds fofue; vuqikr ds izfr vo”; gh vkifRr dj ldrk gS] D;ksafd fofue; vuqikr fu/kkZj.k ds le; mls, vius ewy xkVksa ds vykok] vU; xkVksa ds fofue; vuqikr dk iwjk Kku ugha gks ikrkA okLro esa] mls mu xkVksa ds ewY; dk vuqeku rHkh yxk ikrk gS tc esa mlds pd esa ns fn;s tkrs gSaaA vr% ;g vfuok;Z gS fd mls bl le; nwljs xkVksa ds fofue; vuqikr ds izfr vkifRr izLrqr djus dk volj feysAß

13. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a person who has been allotted chak can assail the valuation of the land 4 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80866 of such allotment made in his favour, but the person whose land has been allotted cannot turn around and challenge the valuation of the land of the person who has been allotted chak on his holdings. Firstly, the person whose land has been allotted does not have any right to assail such finding while on the other hand person who has been allotted particular chak has right to assail the valuation of the land which has been allotted to him. Taking any other view would be to unnecessarily enlarge the area of litigation and confer right to assail the validity of valuation even in those matters where substantial rights of the person concerned are not at all effected. However, at the appropriate stage such objections could have been raised, but, in the present case, no such objections have been raised.

14. Accordingly, it is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that no infirmity has been committed by the authorities below. Apart from the above, this Court finds that petitioner does not dispute the allotment of chaks in his favour and therefore, this Court do not find any ground for interfering in the matter in exercise of power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

15. Present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) December 5, 2025 A. Verma 5 ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench