HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2707 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Singh Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 230, respondent no. 5 is chak holder No. 168, respondent no.6 is chak holder No. 66 and all the three chak holders are co-sharer of plot No. 88. The chak allotment proceeding was initiated at the instance of petitioner against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming entire area of plot No. 88/1. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.6.2023 allowed the chak objection filed by petitioner allotting area 0.036 hectare on plot No. 88/1. Consolidation Officer has allotted 0.012 hectare area to petitioner on plot No. 104 from bachat plot along with plot No. 88/1. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.6.2023, chak appeal was filed on behalf of petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 21(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act which was dismissed vide order dated 6.6.2024. Chak revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed by Additional District Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Rustam Ali .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Other .....Respondent(s) Consolidation vide order dated 31.12.2024. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 22.6.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 and the judgement and order dated 6.6.2024 passed by respondent no.2 as well as the judgement and order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure Nos. 2,3 and 5 to the writ petition) respectively and the matter may be remanded to the respondent no.3 to pass fresh order in accordance with law within stipulated period." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that chak objection filed by petitioner was allowed by Consolidation Officer but the relief has not been granted as prayed by petitioner in his chak objection. He submitted that petitioner is a small tenure holder, as such, he should be allotted chak on his original plot according to his original area. He submitted that petitioner has been adjusted on bachat plot which is wholly illegal. He submitted that plot No. 88/1 is a valuable plot, as such, petitioner should be allotted single compact chak on his valuable plot No. 88/1. He submitted that appellate Court and revisional Court have dismissed the appeal as well as revision filed by petitioner without considering the case as set up in appeal and revision. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and petitioner's chak objection should be allowed in proper manner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as petitioner has been adjusted on his original plot No. 88/1 according to his share in the plot. He submitted that plot No. 88/1 is situated beside the chak road. He submitted that there is no illegality in the appellate order as well as in the revisional order passed by consolidation authorities. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 petitioner is chak holder No. 230 WRIB No. 2707 of 2025 2 and plot No. 88/1 is the original plot of the petitioner having 1/3rd share in the same. There is also no dispute about the fact that according to his share, petitioner was having 0.036 hectare area in plot No. 88/1. There is also no dispute about the fact that in chak objection, petitioner has been allotted 0.036 hectare area on plot No. 88/1. There is also no dispute about the fact that chak appeal and chak revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned appellate order and revisional order. 8. The perusal of C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner fully demonstrate that plot No. 88/1 is the original plot of the petitioner having 1/3rd share in the plot No. 88/1 and according to his 1/3rd share, total area of the petitioner in plot No. 88/1 is 0.036 hectare. The schedule attached with the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.6.2023 demonstrate that petitioner has been allotted his 1/3rd share i.e. 0.036 hectare area of plot No. 88/1 which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer while deciding the chak objection filed by petitioner. 9. It is also material to mention that private respondents are also co-sharer of plot No. 88 and plot No. 88 is situated adjacent to chak road. It is further material to mention that petitioner as well as private respondents have been adjusted to their original plot No. 88, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities in the allotment of chak proceeding. 10. In view of the allotment made by Consolidation Officer, there is no further scope for interference to modify the chak of the petitioner in appeal or revision. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities. 12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. September 1, 2025 Vandana Y. WRIB No. 2707 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad