HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2959 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Heard Shri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the Gram Panchayat concerned as also Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 4 to 7. The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 7.1.2026 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh Zone, District Ballia in Revision, order dated 20.6.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Division Azamgarh, Ballia, in Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to proceedings under Section 53 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that consolidation operations in three villages, namely, Ganghara, Bagheji and Khap Shikandra were notified by issuance of a Notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act on 9.2.2015. Subsequently, some difficulties were faced in carry out the consolidation operations in villages Ganghara and Begheji, District Ballia and the Notification under Section 4 (2) was cancelled by Notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act on 20.1.2017. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chetan Chatterjee, Kavindra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Singh, Nitish Kumar Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Munna Prasad Giri .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Azamgarh Division, And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) It is next submitted that Gatas Nos. 2, 5 and 12 are the original holdings of the petitioner and he is in settled possession thereof. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide exparte order dated 20.6.2025 passed under Section 21 (2) of the Act altered the chak of the petitioner without granting any opportunity of hearing and without ascertaining services of notice upon the petitioner granted low lying land to the petitioner and the original holding has been allotted to the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to the recitals contained in the order dated 20.6.2025 of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, particularly, para 6 thereof submits that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation exercising the powers under Section 53 of the Act consolidated total of 17 plots area 1.99 acres Navin Parti in public interest. The plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 were not mentioned amongst the plots mentioned in Para 6. However, in the operative portion the Plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 of the petitioner were mentioned. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation depriving him of his original holdings in Plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation assailing the order dated 20.6.2025. The revision has been dismissed without adverting to the contentions of the petitioner. It is also argued that the private respondents have been given undue advantage by granting them land belonging to the petitioner while the petitioner has been granted low lying land purportedly under the grab of Section 53 proceedings for which the petitioner never consented or compromised. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents as also learned counsel for the private respondents have tried to justify the impugned orders by submitting that the orders have been passed in public interest. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. From the perusal of the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20.6.2025, it is borne out that proceedings under Section 53 of the Act were drawn in respect of the plots mentioned in Para 6 of the order as also Para 6 of the memo of the appeal filed by the WRIB No. 2959 of 2026 2 Gram Pradhan before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 belonging to the petitioner is not included in the said paras. A feeble attempt has been made by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was impleaded in the memo of the appeal filed by the Pradhan and he had consented to the exchange. The said factum has been vehemently denied by the petitioner. The Court is not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision of the petitioner reflects that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has declined indulgence on the ground that accepting the demand of the petitioner would result in allotment of chak in front of the house and Sahan of the Pankaj Giri, the respondent No. 4 and would be a constant bone of contention between the parties. In the opinion of the Court, this cannot be a ground to deny relief to the revisionist/petitioner and reject the revision. For all the above reasons, the impugned order dated 7.1.2026 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision as also the order dated 20.6.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation so far as it affects the plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 of the petitioner is set aside and the position of the chaks at the ACO level is maintained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. September 18, 2026 Ravi Prakash WRIB No. 2959 of 2026 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad