Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78392 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21244 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sita Ram Respondent :- D.D.C. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,Suresh Chandra Tripathi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.1413. The original plots of the petitioner are 830, 840/1 and 840/2, having 1/2 share (0.430 hect.). The petitioner was proposed two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak was proposed on plot nos. 840/2 and 845M and 2nd chak on plot no.830. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection was filed by the petitioner for further allotment of chak on plot no.830. The chak objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.9.2013. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6.9.2013, appeal under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Appeal No.380. The aforementioned appeal was heard and dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 7.2.2014. Against the appellate order dated 7.2.2014, revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Revision No.1358. One another revision was filed by respondent no.4/Radhey Mohan, which was registered as Revision No.1210 and one other revision was also filed by respondent no.5/Radhey Shyam which was registered as Revision No.1153. All the aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.1.2016 dismissed the Revision no.1358 filed by the petitioner as well as Revision No.1210 filed by respondent no.4 but the Revision No.1153 filed by respondent no.5 was allowed in part. Hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 20.1.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur in Revision No.1358, under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act (Sita Ram vs. Radhey Mohan and Others), impugned order dated 7.2.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur in Appeal No.380, under Section 21(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act and allow the objection of the petitioner under Section 20 of the U.P. C.H. Act. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent noto give effect to the impugned orders not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute." 3. On 10.5.2016, counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to file supplementary affidavit, bringing on record the order of the Consolidation Officer but no supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, bringing on record the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as no prayer has been made in the writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer by which chak objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the original tenure holder of plot no.830, having 1/2 share but he was proposed less than 1/2 share in plot no.830, accordingly, chak objection was filed but the Consolidation Officer has illegally dismissed the chak objection. He further submitted that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed without considering the case of the petitioner in proper manner. He submitted that the impunged orders should be set aside and the petitioner's chak objection should be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that there is no challenge to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the instant petition, as such, the instant petition cannot be entertained. He further submitted that all the three consolidation authorities have decided the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision, as such, no further interference is required in the matter as both the parties have been adjusted on their original plots according to their share as far as possible. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 & 5 are co-tenure holders of the plots in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been maintained by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. The perusal of C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner as well as the order passed by the consolidation authorities demonstrates that both the parties have been adjusted on their original plots according to their share as far as possible, as such, there is no further scope for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect to allotment of chak proceeding. 9. It is also material to mention that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.9.2013 has not been challenged by petitioner in this writ petition nor copy of the order dated 6.9.2013 has been annexed inspite of the time granted by this Court about 9 years before, as such, instant writ petition arising out of chak allotment proceeding cannot be entertained. 10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad