JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J
1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. N. Tripathi learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.
2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4th September, 2002, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur.
4. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak No. 191 to the petitioners. The petitioners were proposed three chaks. First chak consisting of plot Nos. 339 and 340 which contains plot No. 340/1 also at their original holding, second Chak at plot No. 228, etc. and third chak on their original holding at plot No. 53M. The contesting respondent was proposed chak No. 69 at two places. First Chak at plot No. 340 consisting of his original holding and second chak at plot Nos. 313, 314, 316, 318 and 320 consisting of plot No. 320 at their original holding. Several tenure holders filed objections including the petitioners and contesting respondent. The chak objections of several tenure holders including the petitioners and contesting respondent were decided by Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 21.1.2001. The contesting respondent was given one chak at plot No. 320 by Consolidation Officer whereas by the order of Consolidation Officer, chak of petitioners were also affected. Chak of the petitioners at plot No. 53M was removed and they were allotted more land at plot No. 340. Appeal was filed by several tenure holders against the order of Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 16th May, 2001, modified the chak of petitioners as well as contesting respondent. Certain area was taken out from chak of contesting respondent from plot No. 320 and they were allotted another chak of plot No. 53/1. Plot No. 53/1 was in Bachat which was initially the original holding of the petitioners. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation took out certain area from plot Nos. 339 and 357 of the petitioners and petitioners were given more area on plot No. 340 and some more plots. Revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by contesting respondent as well as by the petitioners. The contesting respondent in the revision stated that they had two original holdings, namely, plot Nos. 320 and 340, Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted them two chaks, both on their original holding but the Consolidation Officer allotted one chak on plot No. 320 which has been disturbed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The case of contesting respondents was that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allotted plot No. 53/1 out of Bachat land which was original holding of the petitioners. The petitioners prayed that their chak at Assistant Consolidation Officer level may be restored and they should be allotted chak on plot No. 340 according to their share. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide the impugned order dated 4th September, 2002, allowed the revision of contesting respondent and gave chak on his original holding at plot No. 340 area 0.258 acre. The revision filed by the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners have challenged the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4th September, 2002, allowing of revision of contesting respondent.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that contesting respondent has claimed one chak on plot No. 320 as apparent from the order passed by Consolidation Officer, hence they have no right to claim chak on plot No. 340. The petitioners’ counsel further contended that petitioners are original tenure holder of plot No. 340 and are entitled for allotment on plot No. 340 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in refusing the petitioners chak on plot No. 340 which is adjacent to road. It has further been stated that in revision filed by contesting respondent, no notice was issued to the petitioners and without hearing the petitioners, the revision was allowed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent refuting the submissions made by petitioners contended that order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly just. The case of contesting respondent is that he is original tenure holder of plot No. 340 having an area of 0.274 acre as his original holding. The counsel for the contesting respondent contended that original area of petitioners over plot No. 340 is 1.207 acre. It has further been contended that Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted chak to contesting respondent according to his original holding over plot Nos. 320 and 340 and since he has his source of irrigation on plot No. 320, he may be given one chak which prayer was allowed by Consolidation Officer. However, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation removed his chak from plot No. 320 and gave an Udan chak over plot No. 53/1, hence he was aggrieved and filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation praying that his chak on plot No. 340, i.e., his original holding be restored. The counsel for the contesting respondent contended that petitioners even after modification made by Deputy Director of Consolidation in chak of petitioners have still been allotted an area of 1.204 acre in plot No. 340 as against their original area of 1.207. The counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that substantial justice has been done by Deputy Director of Consolidation and no interference is called for in this writ petition.
7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
8. From the facts which have been brought on the record, it is amply clear that contesting respondent is original tenure holders of plot Nos. 320 and 340. The share of contesting respondent in plot No. 340 is 0.274 acre and share of petitioners in plot No. 340 is 1.207 acre. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted two chaks to contesting respondent on plot Nos. 320 and 340. On objection made by contesting respondent, the Consolidation Officer gave only one chak on plot No. 320 to contesting respondent which was modified by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by giving another Udan Chak to contesting respondent on plot No. 53/1. The petitioners were original tenure holders of plot No. 53/1 area 0.466 acre. The revision of contesting respondent has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the finding that contesting respondent is entitled for chak on his original holding at plot No. 340. The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that contesting respondent has been given Udan chak by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, hence prayer of contesting respondent for allotment on his original holding, i.e., plot No. 340 is just. From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that there is no dispute that contesting respondent is also original tenure holders of plot No. 340 having an original area of 0.274 acre. The chak of petitioners from plot No. 340 was modified to give consolidated chak to contesting respondent on plot No. 340 which was also his original holding. The contesting respondent was not aggrieved by said allotment but when Settlement Officer of Consolidation removed his chak from plot No. 320 and gave a Udan chak on plot No. 53/1, there was justifiable ground for contesting respondent for challenging the said modification. The case of contesting respondent before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that he is entitled for allotment of chak on his original holding, i.e., plot No. 340 according to his share. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of contesting respondent and allotted chak to contesting respondent at his original holding i.e., plot No. 340 according to his share. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted chak to contesting respondent on plot No. 340 on an area of 0.258 acre against his original area of 0.274 acre. The allotment of contesting respondent on plot No. 340 is not more than his share in plot No. 340. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error in accepting the genuine request of contesting respondent to allot chak on his original holding, i.e., plot No. 340 according to his share. From copy of C.H. Form 23 filed by the petitioners themselves along with the supplementary affidavit, it is clear that petitioners’ share on plot No. 340 is only 1.207 and even after modification by Deputy Director of Consolidation, petitioners will have an area of 1.204 on plot No. 340 which is almost equivalent to their original share. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that contesting respondent before the Consolidation Officer have only asked for chak on plot No. 320, hence he cannot make a prayer for allotment on plot No. 340 cannot be accepted. Before the Consolidation Officer, prayer of the contesting respondent was to consolidate his both chaks on one plot i.e., plot No. 320 which was his original holding which was accepted. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation modified the chak of contesting respondent and instead of restoring his chak as of Assistant Consolidation Officer stage on plot No. 320, allotted a completely Udan chak to him at plot No. 53/1. The contesting respondent has every right to file a revision and challenge allotment on plot No. 53/1 and pray for his allotment as originally made by Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the order made the position of contesting respondent worst than his allotment as of Assistant Consolidation Officer stage, hence he had every right to challenge the modification made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Thus, the mere fact that before Consolidation Officer, contesting respondent has prayed allotment on one chak, i.e., on plot No. 320 was not an impediment in contesting respondent filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation demanding chak on his original holding at plot No. 340. Even after modification made by Deputy Director of Consolidation, petitioners have still been allotted an area of 1.204 acre on plot No. 340 which is equivalent to their share originally held. Thus, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the petitioners by changes made by Deputy Director of Consolidation. In so far as submission of counsel for the petitioners that no notice was issued in revision filed by contesting respondent to the petitioners is concerned, suffice it to say that revision was heard along with revision filed by the petitioners themselves being Revision No. 1553. The contesting respondent in counter-affidavit has specifically stated that petitioners have engaged counsel before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who argued the case on their behalf. From the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation has heard counsel for both the parties. Hence, the petitioners cannot complain of not giving hearing by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
9. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Judgment of this Court in Punnoo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1996 (Suppl) 454. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has laid down that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not pointed out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in allotment of chaks at level of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, hence the order is liable to be set aside. In the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has specifically noted that chak of contesting respondent is Udan and demand of contesting respondent on his original holding i.e., plot No. 340 is justified. In the present case, by changes made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, contesting respondent was given chak on plot No. 53/1 which was Udan, hence, illegality has been pointed out by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the aforesaid decision of this Court does not help the petitioners in any manner. Another judgment relied by counsel for the petitioners is Devendrapal Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Mathura and Ors., 1982 AWC 802. In the aforesaid case, this Court laid down that a tenure holder must get his original plots and if for some reason, the petitioner wanted a plot of the contesting opposite party, his claim should have been decided in a balanced manner giving cogent reasons- In the present case, revisional court has applied its mind to the facts of the case and modification has been made in a manner so that both, petitioners and contesting respondent, may have their original holding at plot No. 340. The said judgment has, thus, no application in the facts of the present case. The next judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner in Adal Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1989 RJ 113, which also laid down that the Deputy Director of Consolidation having given no valid reason for interference with the chak given at the stage of appellate authority, is vitiated in law. As observed above, in the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has pointed out the error of giving Udan chak to contesting respondent at the appellate stage, hence the said judgment also do not help the petitioners. In the present case, the interference was necessitated due to the reason that appellate court interfered with the allotment of chak in favour of contesting respondent which was his original holding. The chak of contesting respondent was removed from his original holding by giving him Udan chak. It was not a case where Udan chak was allotted to contesting respondent at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. The contesting respondent having been allotted chak on his original holding, a justifiable reason was required for removing the chak of contesting respondent from his original holding by proposing a Udan chak. The judgment of this Court in Jagarnath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and Ors., 1980 AWC 613, has also been relied by counsel for the petitioners. In the said judgment, this Court held that more than three chaks is to be allotted only in exceptional case and further consolidation authorities should, as far as possible, allot land at the place where the tenure holder holds largest part of his holding. In the present case, the petitioners initially have been allotted three chaks. After the allotment by Settlement Officer of Consolidation number of chaks remained three. In the writ petition petitioners have not taken any ground that petitioners have wrongly been allotted four chaks. It was only in supplementary-affidavit that such plea was raised. Even in the decision in Jagarnath’s case (supra) allotment of four chaks is also possible in exceptional circumstances. The petitioners having not taken any ground they cannot raise a grievance with regard to allotment of four chaks. In so far as the requirement of allotment of chak at largest holding of tenure holder is concerned, the petitioners have been allotted chak on plot Nos. 340/1 and 233 both being original holding of the petitioners. The petitioners having allotted chak on their original holding, they cannot complain that there is no allotment on original holding. None of the decisions relied by counsel for the petitioners help the petitioners in the present case.
10. In view of foregoing discussions, no illegality is found in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by contesting respondent. Equities of both the parties have been correctly adjusted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by affecting charges in the chaks of both the parties. Substantial Justice has been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which need no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.