JUDGMENT
S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th May, 1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, allowing Revision No. 1575, setting aside orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and making alteration in the chaks of parties.
2. Dispute relates to the allotment of chaks on land situated in Village Kuandev Chandpatti, Pargana and Tehsil Sagari, district Azamgarh. Petitioner is chakholder of chak No. 133 and contesting opposite party is chakholder of chak No. 199.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner raised a number of arguments including that the impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed ex parte ; plot No. 838 petitioner’s original holding was wrongly taken out by Deputy Director of Consolidation by making chak in triangular shape ; Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation without pointing out any illegality ; chaks of opposite party was wrongly allotted on plots of original holding of her husband which was not in accordance with the principles laid down under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act.
4. Sri R. P. Rai, learned counsel for contesting opposite party in reply urged that impugned order was rightly passed in accordance with law after hearing the parties. He further urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly passed the impugned order considering original holding of husband of contesting opposite party also. Instead of petitioner’s original holding on plot Nos. 838 area .370 acre on road side he was allotted plot No. 838 and 839 area .680 acre on roadside and no prejudice is caused to petitioner.
5. Considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. The first argument that the impugned order was passed ex parte is unsustainable, in view of the admitted fact that Bhola Rau and Kishundeo Rai both are co-chakholders and Kishundeo Rai was heard, who also signed order sheet to acknowledge his participation before Deputy Director of Consolidation coupled with the fact that son of Kishundeo Rai is pairokar of petitioner-Bhola Rai. Kishundeo Rai and Bhola Rai were allotted one compact chak. This fact is also proved that it is a proxy litigation. From perusal of the writ petition it is also clear that petitioner has not made any averment on fact of non-service of notices and a bald allegation of non-hearing without making any specific averment on fact cannot be accepted. The impugned order also makes it clear that it was passed after hearing both the parties. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. Perusal of C.H. Form 23 of petitioner filed along with the supplementary-affidavit makes it clear that petitioner’s original holding consisted of 31 plots. Plot Nos. 838, 844, 849/2 area .583 acre were allotted to him in his chak considering his original holding. Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit makes it clear that plot Nos. 829, 831, 832, 834, 835, 836, 838 and 849/2 acre are original holding of husband of contesting opposite party.
8. I also perused the chak map prepared at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Original holding of husband of respondent on plot Nos. 829, 853 and 854 was rightly excluded from petitioner’s chak and he was allotted plots of his original holding. Petitioner’s chak is still on the main road and major part of plot No. 838 is still in the chak of petitioner apart from this he was also allotted his plot No. 839 situated on main road, though it is not part of his original holding.
9. From perusal of chak map prepared at the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation, it clearly transpires that petitioner has got only one compact chak on plot Nos. 838, 839, 849 and 853 which are part of his original holding. Petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right for allotment of original holding of others in his chak. Chak map also makes it clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation allotted just double area to his original holding on roadside.
10. Neither there is any illegality, violation of principles of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act nor any prejudice is caused to the petitioner by order of Deputy Director of Consolidation.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner further urged that Section 19 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not contemplate that while making allotment of chak to wife original holding of husband could be taken into account. I considered this argument also and I do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for petitioner.
12. Definition of family of a bhumidhar as defined in Explanation to Section 154 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act includes bhumidhar, his wife and minor children.
13. Explanation to Section 154 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act reads as under :
Explanation. –For the purposes of this section, the expression ‘family’ shall mean the transferee, his or her wife or husband (as the case may be) and minor children, and where the transferee is a minor also his or her parents.”
14. The intention of Legislature enacting U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is to allot chaks in compact shape to provide better facilities for development of agriculture. If the wife of a bhumidhar is allotted chaks considering her husband’s original holding in order to provide a chak for better development of agriculture, who is member of his family, it will also be in the interest of tenure holders and in accordance with the consolidation scheme. There is nothing in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which prohibits for allotment of chaks if husband agrees with such a proposal. To the contrary petitioner is a stranger and has no claim at all to original holding of husband of respondent.
15. There is no restriction under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act from considering original holding of husband for allotment of chak to his wife, if he has no objection. There is nothing on record to show that husband of opposite party has any objection.
16. In the circumstances, I am of the view that Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly taken into account original holding of husband of contesting opposite party. I am also satisfied that petitioner was allotted a rectangular chak on main road following the principles laid down under Section 19 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
17. Writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
18. No order as to cost.
