JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri A.B. Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.N. Verma appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. As prayed by counsel for both the parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of.
2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953. The petitioner No. 1 was allotted chak No. 1058 in the consolidation proceedings. Petitioner No. 2 was allotted chak No. 983. The original holdings of the petitioners included plot Nos. 1247/1, 1247/2. 1247/3, 1284, 1285, 1496 and 1399 in which plots petitioners had l/20th share. Plot No. 1058 was also original holding of both the petitioners having l/I5th share. The original holding of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Dhanno Devi consisted of only one plot, namely, 1061 (half share). The original holdings of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 consisted of plot Nos. 941/1, 941/2, 941/3. 1062 and half share in plot No. 1061. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak to the petitioner No. 1 at plot Nos. 1058, 1059 and 1061. Petitioner No. 2 was also proposed chak on plot Nos. 1058, 1059 and 1061.
3. Objection was filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 against the allotment made to the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 objected to the allotment of plot No. 1061 to the petitioner. It was claimed by the objectors that the plot No. 1061 is the road side land which is the original holding of the objector hence petitioners were not entitled to have allotment of chak on plot No. 1061. The respondent No. 2 Smt. Dhanno Devi was allotted one chak of plot No. 1060A, 1061, 1077/1. 1078. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were allotted three chaks; first chak on plot Nos. 1058. 1059, 1061 and 1062 ; second chak on plot Nos. 1061. 1062. 1065/1. 1065/2, 1066/1 and 1077/1 and third chak on plot Nos. 941/1, 941/2, and 941/3. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 3.4.1996 decided the chak objections by which chaks of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were affected. The respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed two appeals. The respondent No. 2 claimed in the appeal that the Consolidation Officer has illegally made adjustment in her chak. It was claimed by her that she is the original tenure holder of plot No. 1061 in which she has half share. The total area, according to her share, is 3025. It was stated that the Consolidation Officer has given Udan Chak to her on plot Nos. 1056, 1058, 1059 and 1082. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed both the appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation held that both the appellants were given chak on road side and the respondents (to the appeal) have been allotted chak taking their original holdings. Two revisions were filed by the respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Both the revisions have been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.8.1998. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order held that the respondent No. 2 had allotted only one chak on plot No. 1061 and her second chak given on plot No. 1058 is Udan Chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to her single chak on plot No. 1061 which is her original holding. With regard to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not been allotted area of plot No. 1061 according to their share. It was further held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that both the petitioners have no original holding near the road whereas they have been allotted chak on plot No. 1061 which is on the road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation removed the chak of the petitioner from plot No. 1061 and directed for giving them chak to their original holding at plot No. 1058. The said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioners Sri A.B. Singh challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made following submissions in support of the writ petition :
(1) That prior to consolidation proceedings, the plot No. 1059 of the petitioners was situated adjacent to chak road which chak road was removed and new pakka road has been constructed on plot Nos. 1061 and 1062 hence the petitioners are entitled for allotment of chak on plot No. 1061.
(2) That the respondent No. 2 Smt. Dhanno Devi did not file any objection before the Consolidation Officer and in the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation she had made a claim of allotment of chak at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage whereas before the Deputy Director of Consolidation she has claimed entire area of plot No. 1061. which is not permissible.
(3) That the finding of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation regarding valuation and allotment of chaks has not been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(4) That the respondents were not entitled for chak on both sides of road.
(5) That the amendment chart prepared by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not in accordance with the order dated 31.8.1998. Land worth valuation of one paisa from plot Nos. 1059 and 1082 was directed to be included in the chak road whereas the said valuation has been added in chak No. 983.
5. Counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly justified. He has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any allotment of plot No. 1061 which is road side land belonging to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. He has submitted that the objection against the allotment to the petitioner of plot No. 1061, was filed by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 before the Consolidation Officer. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering all material facts, has given reasons for changes made in the allotment. He has further referred to C.H. Form '2A' prepared during the consolidation proceedings for showing that on plot Nos. 1061 and 1062 the road is mentioned.
6. The first question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioners had any right or entitlement for allotment of chak on plot No. 1061 which is situated on the road. The petitioners have filed a copy of chak map as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The chak map clearly shows that the road is going from south to north by which plot Nos. 1061 and 1062 are divided east-west. In fact, road is going in between these two plot Nos. 1061 and 1062. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since prior to the consolidation, his original holding (plot No. 1059) was adjacent to the chak road, he is entitled for allotment of chak on the side of pakka road going through plot No. 1061. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, i.e., Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Anr. 1986 AWC 1088. and the judgment dated 1.8.2001 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9897 of 1988. Parabhu v. Additional Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and Ors. Section 19 lays down the conditions which are to be fulfilled by the Consolidation Scheme. Section 19 (1) (e) provides that "every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding". In the present case, the claim of the allotment by the petitioners is on a plot, i.e., plot No. 1061 which is not the original holding of the petitioners. It is admitted to both the parties that the plot No. 1061 is situated on the pakka road as shown in the map Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In fact, the road runs in between the plots north-south dividing the plot No. 1061 east-west. The claim of the petitioner is based on his claim that since his original plot No. 1059 was adjacent to the chak road prior to the consolidation, hence he should be allotted a chak on the road. The counsel for the respondents although in the counter-affidavit has denied that the plot No. 1059 was situated adjacent to the chak road but assuming the case of the petitioners that the plot No. 1059' was on the chak road, it has to be examined as to whether that fact itself gives any right to the petitioners to claim allotment on a pakka road which goes through another plot. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioner at no point of time has claimed chak road near his chak or near his original holding rather on the basis of fact that his plot was once situated near the chak road, he is claiming allotment on a plot which does not belong to him and is situated on the pakka road. Neither there is any provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. 1954, to allot chak to a tenure-holder on road who had his plot adjacent to chak road nor any authority has been cited by the petitioners for the above proposition. Whenever the consolidation proceedings begin, statement of principles are prepared, provisional. Consolidation Scheme is proposed taking into consideration various factors. Under the various development plans of the State Government, the roads are constructed in the village for development of the village people. Construction of road or running of a road is not dependent on any individual's convenience or desire but they are constructed in accordance with the plans and procedure for construction of roads. New roads are carved out running through various tenure holders' land. In the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioners, i.e., Asbaran a. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and another, 1986 AWC 1088, it is held in paragraph 7 :
"This provision contained in Section 19 (1) (f) enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private sources 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 a 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 allotment of a chak of compact area at place where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. If 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 (i) (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 by 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 vi-olative of specific provisions. But in my opinion, an allotment of an '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."
7. 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 his holding. The said judgment further held 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. The counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid judgment submitted that there was no illegality in the allotment of plot No. 1061 in the petitioners' chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a clear finding that the plot No. 1061 is original holding of both the respondent No. 2 half share, and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 half share. When the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been claiming allotment of plot No. 1061 according to their share, there was no illegality in allotting chak to them on their original holding and removing the chak of petitioners which was not on plot No. 1061. The allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 of plot No. 1061 is in full conformity with the provisions of Section 19 (1) (e}. Admittedly the respondent No. 2 has only one original holding, i.e., plot No. 1061 having half share. Thus, she has better claim for allotment of plot No. 1061 which was her original holding. The fact that even agricultural land lying adjoining to the pakka road is valuable land and the principle that if a person has his original holding on pakka road, he is entitled to claim allotment on the road, has been accepted by this Court in several decision. In Mukut Nathi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Gorakhpur and others, 1998 RD 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 upto the P.W.D. road, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation will not be valid and justified."
8. The petitioner has not claimed that there is no way available to him to reach to his chak and allotment to the petitioner on road was necessary for reaching him to his chak. The decision of Asbaran's case (supra) cited by the petitioners does not support the contention of the petitioners rather, according to the aforesaid decision, a tenure-holder should be allotted chak on his largest holding. Plot No. 1061 admittedly is the original holding of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the respondent No. 2 had only one holding, i.e., plot No. 1061 and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had also a largest holding on plot Nos. 1061 and 1062, hence no error was committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in allowing the revision filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and setting aside the allotment in favour of the petitioners of plot No. 1061 and shifting the petitioners on their original holding, i.e.. plot No. 1058. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation discloses cogent reasons for allowing the revision and in view of the findings given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order, the revision filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was rightly allowed. The second decision cited by the petitioners that is Parabhu's case (supra) does not help the petitioners in any manner. In that case, this Court held that the circular dated 25.5.1981 relied by the petitioners of that case has got no statutory force and is not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present writ petition, there is no claim for enforcing the circular dated 25.5.1981 by this Court. Thus, the aforesaid case also does not help the petitioner nor from the aforesaid judgment any such principle can be read that a tenure-holder cannot claim allotment of his chak on his original holding which is situated on a road.
9. The second submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 had not filed any objection, hence she could not have claimed the total area of plot No. 1061 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is to be considered. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted chak to respondent No. 2 on the road giving area of plot No. 1061. The respondent No. 2 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has claimed that her chak on plot No. 1061 be allowed to be maintained of Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. The respondent No. 2 had not been allotted total area of plot No. 1061 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The allotment in favour of the respondent No. 2 at the stage of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was according to the share of the respondent No. 2 on plot No. 1061. Furthermore, from the material on record it is clear that the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who were also original tenure-holder of plot No. 1061 upto the extent of half share, had filed objection challenging the allotment of portion of plot No. 1061 in chak of the petitioners, hence the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit error in making adjustment in the allotment of chak with regard to plot No. 1061 and no benefit can be claimed by the petitioners on the basis that the respondent No. 2 had claimed only restoration of chak at Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having decided both the revisions together no error has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in allotting plot No. 1061 to its original tenure holders, i.e., respondent No. 2 and the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
10. The third submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not set aside the finding of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation regarding valuation and allotment. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeals with the observations that both the appellants have been allotted chak adjoining the road and the respondents (petitioners of the present writ petition) have been allotted chak taking their original holding. The above finding has been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in detail. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the petitioners are not the original tenure-holders of plot No. 1061 which is on the road and the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been allotted chak on plot No. 1061 less than their share. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further held that the respondent No. 2 was tenure-holder of only one plot i.e., plot No. 1061 hence she was entitled for chak on the said plot. The finding of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that the petitioners (respondents in appeal) have been allotted chak taking original holding, has been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by holding that plot No. 1061 is not original holding of the writ petitioners. Thus, it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not adverted to the reasons given by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising, the jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has wide jurisdiction. In Sheo Nand and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others. 2000 (2) AWC 1276 (SC) : (2000) 3 SCC 103, the Apex Court while considering the scope of Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953. held in paragraph 20 as under :
'The section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either sue motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest term so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the revenue records may be prepared accordingly."
11. Thus, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had every jurisdiction to consider the claim of both the parties and pass an appropriate order in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. No error can be said to have been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in considering the claim of both theparties and upholding the claim of allotment of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of plot No. 1061 which was original holding of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
12. The fourth submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are not entitled for chak on both sides of road, is to be considered. The counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraph 295 of Consolidation Manual which provided that in the event of allotting chak to a tenure-holder on both sides his crops of his field are damaged by passers-by and animals going through road and further if at any time the road is to be widened the loss will be suffered if chak is allotted on both sides of the road. The aforesaid provision of the Consolidation Manual makes the aforesaid recommendation for safeguarding the interest of the tenure-holders. As noted above, in the present writ petition the road divides the original holding (plot No. 1061) east-west. The plot of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 being both sides of the road, it cannot be said (hat there is any statutory prohibition for giving chaks on both sides of the road. More so, when the tenure holder is claiming his right of allotment of entire plot No. 1061. The provisions of Consolidation Manual contemplated for giving relief to a tenure-holder by saving his crop from damage by passers-by and animals passing through the road, but when the tenure-holder has his original holding on both sides of the road and he is claiming his allotment despite. the loss as contemplated in the Consolidation Manual, it cannot be said that there is prohibition in allotment. Further, it is to be noted that the aforesaid argument based on paragraph 295 of the Consolidation Manual was not raised before any of the consolidation authorities nor there is any pleadings in the writ petition based on the aforesaid paragraph of the Consolidation Manual so as to give opportunity to the respondents to have their say on the said argument. In view of above facts, the allotment cannot be held to be vitiated due to above reasons.
13. The last submission of the counsel for the petitioners that amendment chart is not in accordance with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.8.1998, is required to be considered. The order clearly directed that the land of one paisa valuation will be added in chak road. The amendment chart shows that one paisa valuation from plot No. 1058 was taken out from the chak of respondent No. 2, i.e., Chak No. 296 and land of same valuation was given from plot No. 1058 into the chak road. It is clear from the order that portion of plot No. 1058 is in the chak road. The chak road and the chak of respondent No. 2 has been affected. No area of chak road has been given in the chak of the petitioners nor any area from chak of the petilioners has gone in chak road. From the adjustments made in the chart, it is clear that same valuation land was taken from chak road and same valuation of land was given in chak road. The order only directed addition of one paisa valuation in chak road which valuation has been given in chak road as disclosed in the amendment chart. Instead of plot Nos. 1059 and 1082 chak road has been given in plot No. 1058. It appears that there is some inconsequential mistake in the operative portion of the order. However, the amendment chart has been prepared in accordance with the reasons and findings given by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to changes made in the chak of the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. There is no mistake in the amendment chart with regard to chak adjustment of petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The mere fact that there is little mistake with regard to mentioning of number of plots from which one paisa will be given in chak road, does not in any manner affect the petitioners. Thus, the above submission does not help the petitioners in any manner in establishing any illegality in the order. The amendment chart is in accordance with the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and in accordance with the changes made in the chak of the petitioners quo the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
14. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered all relevant facts regarding allotment and has done substantial justice between the parties by allotting the chak to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on their original holding and removing the chak of the petitioners from plot No, 1061 and sending them on their original holding i.e., plot No. 1058, no error has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in allowing the revisions. The petitioners have failed to make out any ground for interference in the impugned order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.