Raj Kumar vs D.D.C. Sitapur And 4 Ors. on 25 April, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Raj Kumar vs D.D.C. Sitapur And 4 Ors. on 25 April, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23880
 

 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1239 of 2003
 

 
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. Sitapur And 4 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Saran Nigam,Mohammad Aslam Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avadhesh Kumar,Harish Chandra,Piyush Kumar Agarwal
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s):-

“issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 in Revision No. 234 Raj Kumar v. Krishna Kumar, 14.5.2003 passed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and 16.10.2002 passed by the Opposite Party No. 3, contained in Annexure No. 1, 5 and 4 respectively of the Writ Petition.”

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) The petitioner/Raj Kumar and respondent Nos. 4/Krishan Kumar & 5/Sant Kumar, respectively, are the real brothers.

(ii) The dispute in the present case relates to the ancestral property/land of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

(iii) The land of Gata Nos. 38, 186 and 229 situated at Village- Parsehramal, Pargana- Hargaon, Tehsil and District- Sitapur, is the ancestral property of aforesaid parties.

(iv) Indisputedly, all the parties aforesaid are having 1/3 share each over the aforesaid Gatas.

(v) As per the petitioner, a family partition took place prior to initiation of consolidation proceedings and the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were in possession based upon the said settlement as per the Map annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the instant petition. The Map, referred, is extracted hereunder:-

(vi)  The Assistant Consolidation Officer concerned (in short “ACO”) after considering the claim of the respective parties proposed the chak as indicated in the Map annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the instant petition. This Map is also extracted hereunder:-

(vii) It would apt to indicate here that the Map indicated in the preceding paragraph 3(vi) of this judgment was prepared for the purposes of allotment of chak(s) to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

(viii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, objections were filed by petitioner/Raj Kumar and respondent No. 4/Krishna Kumar registered as Case No. 556 (Raj Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar and others) and Case No. 555 (Krishna Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others), respectively, under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short “Act of 1953”). The respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Hargaon, District- Sitapur (in short “CO”), after due consideration of the facts of the case and chak(s) proposed by ACO, as aforesaid, rejected the objections vide order impugned dated 16.10.2002. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.10.2002 reads as under:-

“mHk;i{kksa dks lquk x;k vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk lkFk LFky fujh{k.k Hkh fd;k x;kA oknh jktdqekj dh vksj ls vius uEcjksa ij [kM+s bu isM+ksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS budk ewY;kadu vafdr fd;k tk pqdk gSA blfy, ,d ckj fu/kkZfjr ewY;kadu esa iqu% la’kks/ku ;k ifjorZu djuk mfpr ugha gksxkA tgka rd l0p0v0 }kjk izLrkfor pdksa dk laca/k gS bl laca/k esa vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li”V gS fd rhuksa Hkkb;ksa ds pd iwjc if’pe yEckbZ esa eq[; ekxZ rd cuk;s x;s gSA pwafd xkVk la[;k 186 o 229 d`”.k dqekj] jktdqekj o lUr dqekj iq=x.k lkses’oj nRr ds uke la;qDr :i ls vafdr gSA tgka ,d vksj jktdqekj }kjk eq[; ekxZ iwjk ysrs gq, vius pd dh ekax dh x;h gS ogha nwljh vksj vU; lg[kkrsnkjksa es Hkh eq[; ekxZ rd igqapus ds fy, leku pkSM+kbZ esa pd cuk;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k gSA oknhx.kksa ds IykV lhrkiqj ls y[kheiqj ekxZ ls yxs gq, gksus ds dkj.k [ksrh ds lkFk lkFk vU; O;kolkf;d egRo dh Hkwfe izrhr gksrh gS vkSj ;gh dkj.k gS fd lHkh HkkbZ eq[; ekxZ rd igqapus ds fy, bl fglkc ls pd cuk;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd O;olkf;d egRo okyh Hkwfe Hkh lcds fgLls eas vk tk;A bl laca/k esa d`”.k dqekj o lardqekj }kjk vuqikfrd :i ls lM+d rjQ leku fgLls dh ekax dh x;h gSA blds foijhr jktdqekj us lM+d dh rjQ dh lEiw.kZ Hkwfe vius i{k esa ekax dh gSA l0p0v0 us tks pd izLrkfor fd;k gSA mles jktdqekj dks LkM+d dh vksj T;knk pkSM+kbZ esa pd izfn”V fd;k gS tcfd vU; fgLlsnkjksa dks ml pkSM+kbZ esa LkM+d rjQ ugha fn;k x;k gSA igys ls gh lM+d rjQ O;olkf;d egRo dh Hkwfe jktdqekj dks vf/kd izfn”V dh tk pqdh gSA blfy, lM+d Nksj dk lEiw.kZ va’k fn;s tkus laca/kh jktdqekj dh ekax U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vr% lM+d rjQ dk vf/kdka’k Hkkx fn;s tkus laca/kh jktdqekj dh vkifRr U;k;ksfpr u gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rnuqlkj mudh vkifRr [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

blh izdkj d`”.k dqekj dh vksj ls Hkh lM+d rjQ pkSM+kbZ esa 1@3 va’k dh ekax ds vuqlkj la’kks/ku fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxkA D;ksafd ,slk djus ij pdksa dh vkd`fr;ka fcxM+us ds lkFk lkFk rhljs i{k dks lM+d rjQ dksbZ Hkh va’k izkIr ugha gks ikosxkA vr% d`”.k dqekj dh Hkh vkifRr [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g fl) gS fd l0p0v0 }kjk i{kksa dks tks pd izLrkfor fd;s x;s gSaA os loZFkk mfpr gS buesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk ifjorZu fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxkA vr% nksuksa vkifRrdrkZvksa dh vkifRr;ka [kkfjt djrs gq, l0p0v0 }kjk izLrkfor pd dk ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA rnuqlkj vkns’k gqvk fd&

vkns’k

xzke ijlsgjk eky ijxuk gjxkao ds pdnkj la[;k 238 pd la031 o pd la0 289 ds laca/k esa Jh jktdqekj o d`”.k dqekj dh pd vkifRr;ka cyghu gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA l0p0v0 }kjk izLrkfor pdksa dh iqf”V dh tkrh gSA oknhx.kksa dks [kkfjt uksfVl vyx ls tkjh gksA ;gh vkns’k i=koyh okn la0 555 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA

i=koyh okn vey cjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA”

(ix) After the order dated 16.10.2002 passed by CO, being aggrieved, three appeals were filed. The petitioner/Raj Kumar filed the Appeal No. 215 (Raj Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar and others), respondent No. 4/Krishna Kumar filed the Appeal No. 214 (Krishna Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others) and respondent No. 5/Sant Kumar filed the Appeal No. 218 (Sant Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others). All the three appeals were rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow Camp, Sitapur (in short “SOC”) vide order impugned dated 14.05.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.05.2003 reads as under:-

“eSus i=kofy;ksa ds voyksdu rFkk fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksaZ dks lquus ,oa tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e 1953 ,oa fu;ekoyh esa fofgr izkfo/kkuksa dks ns[kus ds i’pkr ;g ik;k fd fookfnr xkVk la0 229 o 186 mHk; i{kksa ds ewy xkVs gSaA ;g xkVs lhrkiqj ls y[kheiqj tkus okys jktekXkZ ij fLFkr gSA lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us m0iz0] tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e] 1953 dh /kkjk&19 dh mi/kkjk ³ o p esa fofgr fl}karksa dk ikyu djrs gq, pd izfn”V fd;s gSA /kkjk&19 dh mi/kkjk ³ esa ;g izkfo/kku gS fd izR;sd [kkrsnkj dks ;FkklEHko ml LFkku ij pd izfn”V fd;k tk;s tgka mldh tksr dk lcls cM+k Hkkx gksA mi/kkjk p esa ;g izkfo/kkfur fd;k x;k gS fd izR;sd [kkrsnkj dks ;FkklaHko og xkVk izfn”V fd;k tk;s ftlesa mldk flapkbZ dk lk/ku vFkok vU; dksbZ leqUufr fo|eku gksA vkSj lkFk lkFk esa mlds fudV dk og {ks=Qy izfn”V fd;k tk;s tks mlds }kjk ?kzV xkVksa ds leku gksA tgka rd jktdqekj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr uthj dkys cuke Mh0Mh0lh0vk0Mh0&1976] i`”B&355 dk iz’u gS] mDr uthj ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ls lacaf/kr gSA ikfjokfjd le>kSrk] ikfjokfjd fookn vkSj dyg ds fuLrkj.k ds fy, ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh vkilh jtkeUnj ls rS;kj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj le;kuqlkj l{ke U;k;ky; esa l{ke /kkjk ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;k tkrk gSA ;fn i{kksa ds e/; lqygukek i{kksa dh jtkeanh ls Fkk rks mldks /kkjk&9 ds izdk’ku ds mijkar i{kksa dks tksr pdcanh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&9&d 2 ds vUrxZr izLrqr djuk pkfg, FkkA vkSj mls ml fof’k”V volj ij izLrqr u djus dk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd i{kksa esa dksbZ ikfjokfjd le>kSrk i{kksa dh jtkeanh ls ugha FkkA ikfjokfjd le>kSrk i{kksa dh jtkeanh ls gksrk gS] bl izdj.k esa pd ds laca/k esa izR;sd i{k }kjk ,d ,d vihy nk;j dh x;h gS ftlls Li”V gksrk gS fd i{kksa esa dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gSA tgak rd jktdqekj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr uthj jktLo yk VkbEl] 1998] i`”B&14 dk laca/k gS] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d foospu esa ;g ekuk gS fd ewy [kkrsnkj dk fu”d”kZ nLrkosth lk{;] tSls tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&2&d ds vk/kkj ij fudkyuk pkfg;sA tgka rd tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&2&d dk iz’u gS] i=koyh esa tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&2&d dh izfrfyfi nkf[ky gS ftlds voyksdu ls Li”V gS fd i{k pdcUnh ls iwoZ nksuksa xkVksa ij fHkUu fHkUu txgksa ij tksr cks jgs FksA ;fn bls eku fy;k tk;s rks izR;sd pdnkj dks izR;sd xkVs ij pd izfn”V djuk gksxkA ;fn ,slk gksrk gS rks pdcUnh izfdz;k dk m|s’; gh lekIr gks tkrk gS D;ksafd tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ,d dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e gS vkSj vc rd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk nh x;h O;oLFkkvksa ls ;g lqfLFkj gks pqdk gS fd fdlh dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjkvksa ,oa mlds vUrxZr cuh fu;ekoyh dk foospu djrs gq, vf/kfu;e ds y{;] tu dY;k.kdkjh vf/kfu;e dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, mnkj n`f”Vdks.k viukuk pkfg, tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vkj0ih0’kqDyk cuke Mh0Mh0lh0]vkj0Mh0] 1994 esa viuk er O;Dr fd;k gSA tgka rd jktLo yk VkbEl 1998] i`”B 332 dh uthj dk iz’u gS] blesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk gS fd m0iz0] tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e] 1953 dh /kkjk&19 ds varxZr pd vkcaVu ds le; lcls cM+s Hkw[k.M vkSj flapkbZ ds lk/ku ls ;qDr Hkw[k.M ij pd izfn”V djuk pkfg,A ;fn ,slk ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks bldk i;kZIr dkj.k fn;k tkuk pkfg,A bl laca/k esa vfHkys[kksa ,oa pd Hkwfp= ds voyksdu ls fLFkfr LIk”V gks tkrh gS fd i{kksa dks mudh tksr ds cM+s HkwHkkx ij flapkbZ ds lk/ku dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&19 esa fofgr izkfo/kkuksa ds rgr pd izfn”V fd;s x;s gSaA bl uthj esa fofgr U;kf;d foospu dk lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk iw.kZr;k ikyu fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g uthj Lor% vuqikyu gksus ij fu”izHkkoh gks tkrh gSA

lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk pd izfn”V djrs le; mRrj izns’k tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e] 1953 dh /kkjk&19 esa fofgr izkfo/kkuksa] rkjkpUn rFkk vU; cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 rFkk vU;] 1994] vkj0Mh0] i`”B&286] txUukFk cuke la;qDr Mh0Mh0lh0 rFkk vU;] 1994 vkj0Mh0] i`”B&284 rFkk bUnziky ,oa vU; cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 rFkk vU; vkj0Mh0]1993] i`”B&44 ij ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vo/kkfjr U;kf;d foospu dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, pd izfn”V fd;s gSa lkFk gh lkFk lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ;g ckr Hkh /;ku esa j[kh x;h gS fd fookfnr xkVs ftu ij pd izfn”V fd;s x;s gSa] og lhrkiqj ls y[kheiqj tkus okys jktekxZ ls lVs gksus ds dkj.k izR;sd pdnkj dks lM+d ls lVs gq, pd izfn”V fd;s x;s gSaA esjs fopkj ls pdksa ds izfn”Vhdj.k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vfu;ferrk ,oa voS/kkfudrk ifjyf{kr ugha gksrh gS vkSj pd fofgr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr lgh izfn”V fd;s x;s gSA vr% vihy cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

vkns’k

vr% vkns’k gqvk gS fd mijksDrkuqlkj rhuksa vihysa cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA ;gh vkns’k rhuksa vihyksa ij ykxw gksxkA i=kofy;ka okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksaA”

(x) Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2003 passed by SOC, three revisions were filed. The petitioner/Raj Kumar filed the Revision No. 234 (Raj Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar and others), respondent No. 5/Sant Kumar filed the Revision No. 244 (Sant Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others) and respondent No. 4/Krishna Kumar filed the Revision No. 245 (Krishna Kumar vs. Raj Kumar and others), which were also dismissed by the Revisional Authority/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur (in short “DDC”) vide order impugned dated 06.09.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.09.2003 reads as under:-

“mHk;i{kksa dks lquus ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k ls ;g rF; Li”V gS fd rhuksa gh fuxjkuh drkZx.k vkil esa lxs HkkbZ ,oa lg&[kkrsnkj gSaA mHk;i{kksa dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd mudk ikfjokfjd caVokjk Fkk ftlds laca/k esa vihy U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk gS fd ikfjokfjd caVokjk dks ewfrZ:i iznku djus ds fy;s mlds vk/kkj ij foHkktu djkuk pkfg;s Fkk fdUrq jktdqekj vFkok vU; fuxjkuhdrkZ us caVokjk ikfjokfjd vk/kkj ij u djkdj 1@3 Hkkx izR;sd ds vk/kkj ij djk;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij i{k ckf/kr gSA pwafd xkVk la0 186 o 229 esa mHk; i{k lg&[kkrsnkj gSa vr% izR;sd O;fDr dk nksuksa xkVksa esa 1@3 va’k gh ekuk tk;sxk blesa ikfjokfjd caVokjs dk dksbZ izHklo ugha gksxkA bl fcUnq ij eSa vihy U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ls lger gwaA fuxjkuhdrkZ jktdqekj dh vksj ls tks O;oLFkk esjs le{k izLrqr dh x;h gS] mlds ifjizs{; esa eSuas yksr pdcUnh vkdkj i= 2&d dk ijh{k.k fd;kA bl izi= eas xkVk la0 186]229 dkfot gksus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy;s bl O;oLFkk dk dksbZ ykHk fuxjkuhdrkZ jktdqekj dks ugha fn;k tk ldrkA rhuksa gh fuxjkuhdrkZ x.k ds pd iwjo ifPNe lM+d ls feykdj cuk;s x;s gSa ftlls lHkh ij vPNh o [kjkc Hkwfe fey jgh gS vkSj pd vkoUVu esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha cjrh x;h gS rFkk /kkjk 19 ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu fd;k x;k gSA tgka rd fuxjkuhdrkZ d`”.k dqekj o lUr dqekj dh bl ekax dh iz’u gS fd rhuksa pdknkjksa dks lM+d fdukjs leku pkSM+kbZ dh tkosA ;g blfy;s lEHko ugha gS fd lM+d frjNh gS vxj lM+d ij leku pkSM+kbZ djus ls lHkh pd VsM+s gks tkosaxsA blfy;s bu nksuksa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh ekax Lohdkj fd;k tkuk Hkh lEHko ugha gSA

mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esjs fopkj ls rhuksa fuxjkuhdrkZ x.k ds pdksa dk vkoUVu mfpr gS rFkk lHkh dks leku Lrj vkSj iSnkokj dh Hkwfe vlofUVr dh x;h gSA bl vk/kkj ij rhuksa fuxjkfu;ka cyghu gS rFkk fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSaA

vkns’k

vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij rhuksa fuxjkfu;ka cyghu gS rFkk fujLr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA ;gh vkns’k i=koyh la0 244 o 245 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA”

4. From the aforesaid including the impugned order(s) dated 16.10.2002, 14.05.2003 and 06.09.2003, it is apparent that the allotment of chak(s) to real brothers i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 by ACO has been affirmed by all the authorities who adjudicated the claim of the parties. Further, the Map extracted in preceding paragraph No. 3(vi) of this judgment indicates that all the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are having access on the highway as the chak(s) of these parties are on highway/adjacent to highway. This Map also indicates that the petitioner is having more than the area provided to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 adjacent to highway. Further, from a conjoint perusal of the Map extracted in preceding paragraphs 3(v) and 3(vi) of this judgment, it is evident that all the parties are getting their bore well/tube well. 

5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

6. Assailing the impugned orders dated 16.10.2002, 14.05.2003 and 06.09.2003, Sri Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same have been passed without considering the genuine grievance of the petitioner as also that the same are against the principles embodied under Section 19 and Section 52 of the Act of 1953.

7. He further stated that the chaks ought to have been allotted in terms of family settlement arrived at between the parties and in not allotting the chaks to all the parties, the authorities under the Act of 1953 namely CO, SOC and DDC committed error of law and fact both.

8. He also stated that all the parties were aggrieved by the allotment of chaks as proposed by ACO and therefore, all the parties filed the objections, appeals and revisions and the authorities concerned failed to consider the grievance of the parties, who are real brothers and claiming their rights as per the settlement arrived at amongst them.

9. Learned counsel for the side opposite opposed the instant petition. It is stated that chaks have been allotted to all the parties strictly in terms of Section 19 read with Section 52 of the Act of 1953 as well as the law settled in this regard in various pronouncements of this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court. It is also stated that there was no family settlement between the parties. It is also stated that proposal of ACO was opposed only with regard to share provided on highway.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provision of the Act of 1953.

12. Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:-

“19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely,

(a)……

(b)…..

(c)……

(d)……

(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.”

13. From reading of Section 19(1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements.

14. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant.

“This provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement. Apart from it, no other provisions of Section 19 of the Act enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to make allotment of chak to the tenure-holder on his original plot and the consolidation authorities in view of provisions contained in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act are required to allot, as far as possible, a compact area to the tenure-holder at place where he holds largest part of his holding. The word as far as possible occurring in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act cannot be construed so as to give an unfettered discretion to the consolidation authorities in not making an allotment of a chak of compact area at place where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. It while making allotment of a chak to the tenure holder the Consolidation Officer finds it difficult to make allotment of chak to him of a compact area at a place where he held the largest part of his holding, then, he has to assign reasons for not doing so. If no good reasons are shown, the allotment would certainly be held to be irregular and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid provisions contained in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act, however, cannot be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder be imperatively including therein some plot of his original holding. The requirement of said provision, in my opinion, is that the tenure holder has to be allotted a chak of a compact area at a place where he holds the largest part of his holding and not on the plot of his largest part of holding. In making allotment of chaks equity amongst various tenure holders has got to be adjusted, and, as such, if it is not possible to include some of the original land of the tenure holder in the allotted chak; then the allotment of chak cannot be said to be invalid or without jurisdiction, on the ground that no plot of original holding of the tenure holder has been included in his chak although a chak of compact area has been allotted at a place and in the vicinity where the tenure holder holds the largest part of his holding. The requirement of allotting original plot of the holding to the tenure holder in his chak has been mandated only in Section 19(1)(f), according to which, if there exists private source of irrigation or other improvement on the plot in question, then it has got to be allotted in the chak of the tenure holder. The allotment of chak in violation of the provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) would certainly make allotment illegal being violative of specific provisions. But in my opinion, an allotment of a ‘Uran’ Chak cannot be taken to be illegal and without jurisdiction if such a chak has been allotted at a place quite near the original land held by the tenure holder in its vicinity and not excessively exceeding the valuation of his original plots in that sector.”

15. In the above case, this Court held that in view of the provision of Section 19(1)(e) the consolidation authorities are required to allot as far as possible a compact area to the tenure holder at a place where he holds the largest part of the holding and the judgment also says that the aforesaid provision can be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder including therein some plot of his original holding.

16. In the judgment passed in the case of Mukut Nathi vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur; 1998 R.D. 148, this Court held in paragraph 5 as under:-

“The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation have carved out the chak of the petitioner in such a way that its shape was rectangular and was leading up to the P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation for the first time carved out a chak in rectangular shape running from north to south, with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the land towards P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any finding as to whether under the sale deed any specified portion was sold to the petitioner. In case the petitioner was sold a portion which did not lead up to P.W.D. road, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be justified not to give such portion to the petitioner but if this portion was not specified or he was given a portion which leads up to the P.W.D. road, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation will not be valid and justified.”

17. In respect to cases where the interference in the allotment of chaks is permissible under Article 226, the issue has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition (Cons.) No. 5001 of 1983 (Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & others) decided on 24.09.2014 and in para 29 to 32, this Court has said as under:-

“29. It is not in dispute that the allotment of Chaks is to be made taking into consideration principles laid down under Section 19 of Act 1953. These principles have been considered by this Court in Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1985 AWC 604 All. In para 4 thereof, this Court has said that allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the principles, namely, (i) every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding (ii) the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to valuation of the plot originally held by him and (iii) every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The Court further held that the area held by tenture holder prior to start of consolidation proceedings, is relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder, varies by more than 25% or not, as contained in the first proviso of Section 19 of the Act, 1953.

30. In Dr. A.N. Srivastava Vs. DDC 1982 LLJ 42 Hon’ble K. N. Misra J. referring to Section 19(1)(e) of Act 1953 said:

“The petitioners under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act were entitled to get a chak at a place where they had held largest part of their original holding. The words ‘as for as possible’ used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily ignoring the provisions contained therein. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while altering the chak of the petitioners should have assigned reasons for not making allotment to the petitioners on the aforesaid plots Nos. 1082 and 1087 which were admittedly largest part of their holding. In my opinion the words as far as possible used in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act require the provisions contained therein to be followed unless their compliance cannot be made for specific reasons to be assigned for it”

31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others 1985 LLJ 330 and the Court further said:

“In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act which lays down that every tenure-holder, as for as possible, should be allotted a Chak at a place where he held his largest holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in case it is not possible, then the reasons should have been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to the petitioners on their plot. The words “as far as possible” used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder.”

32. In Doodh Nath Vs. DDC and others 1988(6)LCD 453 the Court held, if a tenure holder has his Chak with private source of irrigation, allotment of chak must be weighed so as to keep intact private source of irrigation of such person. The Court said that there cannot be any legal justification for refusing to allot a Chak to a tenure holder at a particular place, where he had held his private source of irrigation on the ground that his sons or other relations may have been allotted a chak in its vicinity. Every tenure holder would be entitled to get allotment of chak at a place where he could be allotted chak, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The tenure holder would be entitled to get near village Abadi so much of land which he originally held at that place and also at the place of his private source of irrigation. The Court also said that undoubtedly, while deciding objection filed by a tenure holder against proposed allotment of chaks, equities are to be adjusted taking into consideration location of original land-holding of the other tenure holders whose chaks are likely to be affected while determining the objection. But while doing so, just and appropriate claim put forth by the tenure holder cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is a big tenure holder as compared to the opposite parties or that his son or some other relation has been allotted chak near the place where the objector claims an allotment of chak as against his original holding. The Court added a few words of caution for the consolidation authorities, in the following manner:

“In the matter of allotment of chaks a care is to be taken by the authorities to allot chak to the tenure holders to which they are entitled as against their original holdings. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. Thus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to feel hesitant in interfering with the impugned orders which are found to be unwarranted in law and facts of the case, merely on the ground that the writ petition could not be taken up earlier for disposal. The impugned orders cannot be left to survive merely on the delay in disposal of the writ petition for no fault of the petitioner.” (para-11)

18. Further, as per the judgment passed in the case of Raisa Begum vs. D.D.C. and others, reported in 2011 SCC OnLine All 1930, placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite, the original tenure holder is entitled to road side land. In this case, road side land was provided to the purchaser of land, which was purchased during consolidation proceedings.

19. In the judgment passed in the case of Ram Badan vs. D.D.C. and others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 6344, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the side opposite, this Court after considering the observations made in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 1980, Ramadhar Singh vs. Depurty Director of Consolidation, reported in (2009) 106 RD 772, and Sanjay vs. Depurty Director of Consolidation, reported in (2013) 121 RD 561, in para 15 observed as under:-

“15. The consensus of principle that emerges from the decisions in Ram Prasad (supra), Ramadhar Singh (supra) and Sanjay (supra) is that valuable roadside land that is the original holding of a tenure holder, is to be declared chak out or allotted to him as part of his Chak, unless it be imperative on account of some compelling circumstances that may require some marginal departure from the Rule. There is no finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or the Settlement Officer that allotment of the entire area of Khasra No. 60/3 (old) to the petitioner, that is part of the petitioner’s original holding lies in front of the third respondent’s Abadi and would cause the third respondent some great inconvenience or irreparable injury as spoken of in the decision of this Court in Ram Shanker (supra). The remark of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that though it is not appropriate to include any part of this plot in the third respondent’s chak as it is not part of his original holding, considering his Abadi, the same may not be disturbed as ordered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is flawed. To this, is added a remark that, therefore, it would not be proper to remove the part of the plot in dispute included in the Chak of the third respondent. For one, it is not reason enough to deprive the petitioner of a substantial part of his valuable roadside land in favour of the third respondent. Moreover, a look at the confirmed consolidation map shows that between one part of old Khasra No. 60/3 (now renumbered as 369) and included in the third respondent’s chak and the third respondent’s Abadi, there is a sector road running through. This confirmed map is on record as part of Annexure No. SRA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 18th July, 2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no dispute about this.”

20. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hansraj v. Mewalal and others, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 682, till holding is divided in accordance with law, every co-sharer of plot has right on the holding and chak(s) should be carved out in a manner so that everyone gets chak on pitch road.

21. For coming to the conclusion on the basis of principles related to allotment of chak(s) as observed in the judgment(s), referred above, this Court considered the facts of the case.

22. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the allotment of chak to the petitioner is justified and proper. Hence, no interference in the orders impugned is required by this Court in exercise of power vested under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. It is for the following fact(s)/reason(s):-

(i) From the impugned orders dated 16.10.2002, 14.05.2003 and 06.09.2003, it is apparent that the allotment of chak to real brothers i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 by ACO has been affirmed by all the authorities, who adjudicated the claim of the petitioner. Thus, concurrent findings on facts need not be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) From the Map extracted in preceding paragraph No. 3(vi) of this judgment and also the impugned orders, it is evident that all the parties are having access on the highway as chak(s) to the real brothers, who are petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5, have been provided on highway/adjacent to highway.

(iii) From the Map and also the impugned orders, it is evident that the petitioner is having more than the area provided to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 adjacent to highway, which is not in dispute.

(iv) From a conjoint perussal of the Map extracted in preceding paragraphs 3(v) and 3(vi) of this judgment and also the impugned orders, it is evident that all the parties are getting their bore well/tube well. 

23. Cost made easy.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025/Arun/-