Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89594 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21140 of 1993 Petitioner :- R.A.Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N.Tiwari,Sankatha Rai,Surendra Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- B.N.Pandey,Brahma Nand Pandey,G.S.D.Mishra,Kirtikar Pande,Kirtikar Pandey,Ram Ji Singh,Ramji,S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Instruction dated 1.5.2005 sent by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ballia is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh & Mr. Surendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kirtikar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are chak holder no.631. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioners were allotted three chaks. First chak of the petitioners was allotted at plot no.1931 area 10.27 acres, second chak of the petitioners was allotted on plot no.1600 area 9.021 acres and third chak of the petitioners was allotted on plot no.684 area 2.61 acres. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner has filed chak objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.6.1991 disturbed the petitioners' chak. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, petitioners field chak appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 26.2.1993. Against the appellate order, petitioners filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 14.5.1993. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. to issue a writ, order or certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia dated 14.5.1993 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition), order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 26th February, 1993 (Annexure No.II to this writ petition) and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.6.2021 (Annexure No.III to this writ petition) respectively. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to disturb the petitioners possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities." 4. This Court entertained the matter on 8.7.1993 and directed the parties not to change the nature of the plot in question allotted to them. In pursuance of the order dated 8.7.1993, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the grievance of the petitioners as setup before the Consolidation Authorities. He further submitted that the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders. He further submitted that the consolidation authorities have not taken into consideration the provision regarding the allotment of chak on the largest part of the holding, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kritikar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed in the allotment of chak proceeding. They further submitted that due to the interim order passed by this Court in the instant matter delivery of possession of the chak/ demarcation of the chak proceeding has been withheld in the village, as such, the matter may be finally disposed of so that the further consolidation proceeding in the village in question may proceed as the village was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1986. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision have been decided under the impugned order by the consolidation authorities. There is also no dispute about the fact that this Court has entertained the matter and granted interim protection. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant, which is as under: "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.—(1) A Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely,— (a) the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder, as recorded in the register prepared under Section 10, are, subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, secured in the lands allotted to him; (b) the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions. if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, is equal to the valuation of plots originally held by him: Provided that, except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five per cent of the latter; (c) he compensation determined under the provisions of this Act or the rules, framed thereunder, is awarded- (1) to the tenure-holder- (i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure-holders and (ii) for land contributed by him for public purposes; (2) to the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as the case may be, for development, if any, effected by it in or over land belonging to it and allotted to a tenure-holder; (d) the principles laid down in the Statement of Principles are followed; (e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding: Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation: Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely; that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three; | (f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots originally held by him there, and (g) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units. (2) A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final under Section 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provision of Section 19- A.]" 10. Perusal of the pleading made in the instant petition as well as the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision filed by the petitioners along with the impugned orders demonstrate that the claim of the petitioners has not been properly considered by the consolidation authorities in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act while deciding the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision. 11. Perusal of the instruction dated 1.5.2025 sent by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ballia will be also relevant which is as under: पपषक, बनददबसत अधधककरर चकबनदर बधलयक। सपवक मम, ममखय सथकयर अधधवकक मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय इलकहकबकद। पत ससखयक- 80/ ररट ददनकसक 01 मई, 2025 दवषयय - गकम झरकटहह , परगनक - खररद , तहसरल - बबररयक धजलक - बधलयक मम ररट यकदचकक ससखयक -21140/1993 रकमअशरष धससह व दशवजर धससह पमतगण रसजरत धसह बनकम डर०डर०सर० व अनय मम पकररत सथगन आदपश ददनकसक 08.07.1993 कप अनमकम मम पदतशपथ पत तथक सथगन आदपश अपकसत करनप कप समबनध मम सटप - वपकप शन पकथरनक पत दकधखल करनप कप समबनध मम। महददय, उपरदक दवषयक चकबनदर आयमक उतर पदपश, लखनऊ कप पत ससखयक 3568/ जर0 एस 0-526/2019-20 (1) ददनकसक 16.08.2023 कप अनमपकलन मम सकदर अवगत करकनक हब दक गकम झरकटहह, परगनक खररद, तहसरल-बबररयक, धजलक- बधलयक मम ररट यकदचकक ससखयक-21140/1993, रकमअशरष बनकम डर०डर०सर व अनय मम पकररत सथगन आदपश ददनकसक 08.07.1993 कप ककरण गकम कक चकबनदर पदकयक अवरद हब, परनतम अभरतक सथगन आदपश पर कदई दनणरय नहर हहआ हब धजससप गकम मम दवगत 40 वषरस सप चकबनदर कप अधरन कदई ककयरवकहर दकयक जकनक ससभव नहर हद पक रहक हब। ममखय सथकयर अधधवकक गकननरय उचच नयकयकलय महददय तथक बनददबसत अधधककरर चकबनदर ममखयकलय दकरक ददनकसक 24.05.2025 दकरक मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय कप सथगन आदपश सप लममबत गकमह कक समरकक बबठक मम उक ररट यकदचकक मम पदतशपथ पत कप सकथ सथगन आदपश अपकसत करनप हपतम सटप- वपकप शन पकथरनक पत दनयत दतधथ ददनकसक 07.05.2025 कप पपवर दकधखल करनप हपतम दनदरश ददयप गयप हब। तदकनमकम मम शर मधमककनत झक चकबनदर अधधककरर सदर कद उक ररट यकदचकक मम पदतशपथ पत तथक सथगन आदपश अपकसत करनप हपतम सटप. वपकप शन पकथरनक पत दकधखल करनप हपतम भपजक जक रहक हब। अतय अनमरदध हब दक उक ररट यकदचकक मम पदतशपथ पत तथक सथगन आदपश अपकसत करनप हपतम सटप. वपकप शन पकथरनक पत दकधखल करकनप कक कष करम। गकम कप समबनध मम दववरण दनमन हब - गकम कक कम ल कप० 1415 हप0 व कम ल गकटक 5075 हब। इस गकम मम जदत चकबनदर अधधदनयम कक धकरक 4 (2) कक पककशन ददनकसक 02.03.1986, धकरक9 कक पककशन ददनकसक 28. 02.1987 धकरक 10 कक पककशन ददनकसक 30.03.1988 तथक धकरक 20 कक पककशन ददनकसक 12. 01.1990 तथक धकरक 23 कक पककशन ददनकसक 13.09.1991 कद दकयक गयक हब। इस गगकम मम गकमसभक कप चकह कद समममधलत करतप हहए चकह कक ससखयक 928 हब। गकम कप चक अपरलह कक दनसतकरण हदनप कप पशचकतत दबनक चक सरमकसकन / कबजक पररवतरन करकयप ततककलरन उप ससचकलक चकबनदर बधलयक दकरक चक दनगरकदनयह कक दनसतकरण ददनकसक 18.05.1993 कद दकयक गयक धजससप अससतमष हदकर गकम कप कम छ चकदकरह दकरक मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय मम ररट यकदचकक ससखयक 21140, 21141 व 21142 यदधजत कक गयर। ररट यकदचकक ससखयक 21140 मम मकननरय नयकयकलय दकरक ददनकसक 08.07.1993 कद दनमन आदपश पकररत दकयक गयक- "Pending admission issue notices to respondents 4 to 11 calling upon them to show cause by filing counter-affidavit as to why the petition be not admitted/allowed interms of the prayer made therein." Meanwhil, pending admission/disposal of the writ-petition the perties are directed not to change the nature of the land/plots in question allotted to them मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय दकरक पकररत आदपश ददनकसक 08.07.1993 सप गकम मम दनदमरत 30 सपकटरह मम सप 08 सपकटर व गकम मम असदकत कम ल 928 चकदकरह मम सप कम ल 30 चक पभकदवत हब। यकचर कप मपल जदत मम 150 गकटप हब, जद दवदभन चकह मम पददष हब। मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय दकरक पकररत आदपश ददनकसक 08.07.1993 सप गकम मम दनदमरत 30 सपकटरह मम कम ल 08 सपकटर पभकदवत हदनप कप ककरण गकम कक चक सरमकसकन / कबजक पररवतरन नहर दकयक जक सकक। वतरमकन मम गकम चक सरमकसकन / कबजक पररवतरन कप सतर पर लममबत हब। मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय दकरक पकररत आदपश ददनकसक 08.07.1993 कप ककयम रहनप सप गकम कक चकबनदर पदकयक बकधधत हब। अतय अनमरदध हब दक गकम झरकटहह परगनक खररद मम मकननरय उचच नयकयकलय दकरक ररट यकदचकक ससखयक 21140/1993 मम पकररत आदपश ददनकसक 08.07.1993 कप समबनध मम पदतशपथ तथक सथगन आदपश अपकसत करनप कप समबनध मम सटप. वपकप शन पकथरनक पत दकधखल करकनप कक कष करम। बनददबसत अधधककरर चकबनदर बधलयक। 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the facts mentioned in the instruction dated 1.5.2025, the impugned order dated 14.5.1993 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, order dated 26.2.1993 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and order dated 20.6.1991 passed by Consolidation Officer are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 13. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back before respondent no.2/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the petitioners' chak appeal afresh in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad