HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 947 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3. 1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.12.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sadar-1st, District Pratapgarh, order dated 10.1.2025 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal as well as order dated 7.4.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenure holder of original gata No.s 291/0.112 hectare, 479/1/0.48 hectare, 479/2/0.212 hectare, 496/1 Mi./0.008 hectare, 496/3 Mi./0.002 hectare and 496/2 Mi./0.268 hectare situated in village Bhawalpur, Pargana and Tehsil- Sadar, District Pratapgarh. During the consolidation operations three chaks have been allotted to the petitioner bearing plot No.291/1 Mi./0.49 hectare, 479/2 Mi./0.212 hectare with plot No.487/0.001 hectare and lastly plot No.496/2 Mis./0.266 hectare and 510/2 Mi./0.053 hectare. Before all the authorities, the grievance was raised by the petitioner that the entire plot of gata No.291 may be allotted to him as that is his original chak. 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Kaushal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ramkisan Sampat Pardeshi .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) The objection raised by the petitioner was duly considered by Settlement Officer of Consolidation who took into account the fact that the petitioner has only 1/3rd share in gata No.291 and accordingly he was allotted 291/1Mi. and, as such, the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been rejected. 4. Before Deputy Director of Consolidation the same dispute was raised and he also considered the entire facts of the case and on the same reasoning that entitlement and claim of the petitioner is restricted only to 1/3rd share of the original chak in plot No.291 and accordingly 1/3rd share has been allotted to him, the revision was rejected. 5. Before this Court, while assailing the said orders the petitioner has again reiterated his claim that he is entitled for the entire land of chak No.291 and accordingly all the authorities have committed manifest error and illegality by not considering the claim of the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders and submits that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has only 1/3rd share in the aforesaid land and undoubtedly even in gata No.291 his share is limited only to 1/3rd share and in the same proportion land has been allotted to him during the consolidation process. 7. Considering the rival contentions, this Court after considering entire facts of the case does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders in as much as the petitioner has been allotted 1/3rd share in gata No.291 and there is no legal basis for acceding to this prayer for allotting him the entire land of gata No.291. No legal provision could be shown by the petitioner to prove that the orders are in violation of statutory provisions as contained under Section 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This Court does not find any infirmity in the orders impugned in this petition. The petition is 8. WRIB No. 947 of 2025 2 bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 6, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 947 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench