Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19070 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4346 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jhapasi Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava,Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition at considerable length and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner says that the chak allotted to him lacks compactness and he has been given two chaks in plot nos. 253/8 and 253/10 admeasuring 0.041 and 0.015 hectares respectively which are very small and unfit for agriculture. 3. On the other hand, the Authorities below have held that the petitioner's original holding comprise plot nos. 253/8, 253/10 and 277 whereas plot no. 253/1 is respondent no.3, Punarwasi's original holding where he has his tubewell. The Authorities below have remarked that Punarwasi too is a small farmer. 3. Now, here is a case where two small farmers are pitted against each other and both may have similar problems. Even after consolidation, the areas in their chak are small and may be not that viable for cultivation. But, the fact remains that Punarwasi has been given a chak on his original holding comprising plot no. 253/1 wherein he has his private source of irrigation, the tubewell. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argues on the strength of his case pleaded in paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition that the private source of irrigation in plot no. 253/1 that Punarwasi has is an abandoned tubewell. Therefore, it has been wrongly taken into consideration while passing an order of allotment in Punarwasi's favour. There is no denying the fact that Punarwasi has his original source of irrigation in plot no. 253/1 and also the fact that plot no. 253/1 is Punarwasi's original holding. Even if the private source of irrigation located there is not functional, it may be restored any time. 5. As far as equities on account of the size of the chaks allotted to the two parties are concerned, both are similarly placed on account of being small farmers. In these circumstances, we do not think that the Authorities below have committed any manifest error of law in allotting chaks, the way they have done by the impugned orders. This petition fails and is summarily dismissed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Prashant D. Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad