Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59907 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1789 of 1993 Petitioner :- Ram Nath @ Mataru Respondent :- D.D.C. Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of legal heirs of deceased respondent no.2 in spite of the notices issued to them on the restoration application as well as substitution application although one counter affidavit filed in the year 1993 on behalf of respondent no. 2 is on record of the writ petition. 3. The instant writ petition is pending before this Court for the last more than 32 years, as such, there is no option except to decide the writ petition on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner- Ram Nath@ Mataru is chak holder No. 190, respondent no.2 is chak holder No. 140 and respondent no.3 is chak holder No. 204. The chak objections were filed against the proposal made by Assistant Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer decided the chak objection. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, chak appeals were filed before Settlement Officer Consolidation. Settlement Officer Consolidation decided the chak appeals vide order dated 4.3.1987. Against the appellate order dated 4.3.1987. The revision was filed by respondent no.2- Bansraj which was numbered as revision No. 890/947. Another revision was filed by respondent no-3, Ram Janki Mandir which was registered as revision No. 3461/363/874/1552. The aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 26.12.1992 decided the aforementioned revision and disturbed the petitioner's chak. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:- " Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.12.1992." 5. This Court entertained the matter on 13.1.1993 and granted interim protection to the effect that petitioner will not be dispossessed in pursuance of the impugned order dated 26.12.1992 passed by respondent no.1. 6. In pursuance of the order dated 13.1.1993, the parties have exchanged their pleading. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed the petitioner's chak in the revisional exercise of jurisdiction without considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in proper manner. He further submitted that under the impugned revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, the passage of the house of the petitioner has been blocked, as such, the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that in view of the objection, appeal and revision filed by the parties, the chak of the petitioner cannot be disturbed in any manner, as such, the impugned revisional order should be set aside. He further submitted that petitioner is in possession of the chak of Settlement Officer Consolidation stage in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court in the year 1993. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that no interference is required against the impugned revisional order passed in the allotment of chak proceeding. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly adjusted the chak between the parties in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the records. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner's chak has been disturbed at the revisional stage by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. 11. The perusal of the record demonstrate that petitioner was allotted chak on the plots according to the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 12. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner's chak has been disturbed in arbitrary manner blocking the passage of the petitioner to approach his residential house, as such, the impugned revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision Nos. 890 and 947 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 26.12.1992 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 890 and 947 are liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 14. Writ petition stands allowed and stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation is hereby maintained. 15. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad