Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49197 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 8760 of 1987 Petitioner :- Ram Dhani Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- U.K. Mishra,Arjun Singhal,P.S.Yadav,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No- 58 and respondent no-2 is chak holder no- 20Aa. Petitioner and respondent no-2 are real brother. Petitioner was proposed three chak. First chak was proposed at plot no- 18 while second and third chak at different plots. Petitioner filed chak objection for allotment of more area of plot no- 18. Consolidation officer allowed the petitioners chak objection vide order dated 23.6.1984 by allotting more area on plot no-18 and changed the direction from North- South to East-West. Petitioner as well as respondent nos. 2 & 3 filed chak appeals before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Assistant settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 12.12.1984 decided the chak appeals adjusting the petitioner & respondent no-2 on plot no-18 according to their share as far as possible. Against the appellate order dated 12.12.1984, three revisions under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act were filed and deputy director of consolidation vide order dated 27.3.1987 allowed the Revision No. 155 in part filed by respondent no-2 and dismissed the Revision Nos. 123 &165. Hence this writ petition for following relief:- "Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.3.1987 of the opposite party no.1 in Revision No.155 (Annexure-III)". 3. This Court vide order dated 4.5.1987 admitted the writ petition and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 27.3.1987. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed in this matter for last more than 38 years. 5. Office has reported that respondent no.3 is dead. The schedule attached along with the revisional order demonstrate that chak of the petitioner & respondent no-2 was adjusted, as such, there is no necessity to file substitution application in respect to deceased respondent no.3 as the chak of respondent no.3 was not affected in any manner by the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The instant petition is pending before this Court for the last 38 years, as such, it should be decided finally. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's chak was disturbed in arbitrary manner under the impugned order without considering the hardship of the petitioner. He submitted that the chak allotted to the petitioner at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage, was just and proper, as such, there was no occasion to disturb the petitioner's chak at the revisional stage under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner is chak holder no.58 and respondent no.2 is chak holder no.20. There is also no dispute about the fact that at the revisional stage, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak. 9. The perusal of the order passed by the appellate court as well as the revisional court demonstrate that there was no illegality in the appellate order, adjusting the chak of the parties, considering the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act. The exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, was not in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act, as such, the revisional order dated 27.3.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/respondent no.1, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. It is also material that petitioner is in possession of the chak allotted to him at the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as such, the stage of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained as no counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no-2 even after expiry of 38 years. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisonal order dated 27.3.1987 passed by respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 12. The writ petition stands allowed and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 12.12.1984 is hereby affirmed. 13. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad