Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.D.Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Kheri whereby he has set-aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, dated 23.07.2014 and has altered the chak inter se between the parties. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the revision petition filed by him against the order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been dismissed.
The original holding of the petitioner-Hallan was on plot nos.34 and 184 which is clear from CH Form-23 produced by Sri I.D.Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4, which is taken on record. According to said CH Form-23, largest original holding of the petitioner was on plot no.34. Similarly, as per CH Form-23 prepared in respect of chak holder no.42, namely, respondent no.4, which has also been produced by learned counsel for respondent no.4 and is taken on record, original holding of respondent no.4 was on plot nos.160 and 185.
The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to respondent no.4 on plot nos.184 and 185M, that is to say, he had proposed chak to respondent no.4 on his original holding comprised in gata no.185. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to petitioner-Hallan on gata nos.34M, 35M and 36M. The chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the petitioner thus comprised of his original holding in gata nos.34 and 35. However, being not satisfied by the chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer, who vide his order dated 23.07.2014 altered chak of the petitioner as also that of respondent no.4. According to the amended schedule appended to the order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner's chak proposed on gata nos.34M, 35M and 36M was abolished and he was given a chak on gata nos.184 and 185M. Similarly, the chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in favour of respondent no.4 on gata no.184 and 185M was abolished and he was given a chak on gata nos.34M, 35M and 36M.
A perusal of the amended schedule appended to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, thus, reveals that respondent no.4 was given udan chak inasmuch as he was not given any area of his original holding which comprised in gata nos. 160 and 185.
Respondent no.4 challenged the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.07.2014 by filing appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who allowed the same vide his order dated 23.02.2018 whereby the petitioner has been given chak on plot nos.34,35 and 36 whereas respondent no.4 has been given chak on plot nos.184 and 185. The said order of allocation of chak made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been maintained by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing the impugned order dated 18.07.2019.
From perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 23.02.2018 and the amended schedule thereto, it is clear that the petitioner has been given a chak on plot nos. 34, 35 and 36 and out of these plots, gata no.34 is his original holding where he had largest area, as is evident from perusal of CH Form-23. Similarly, respondent no.4 has also been given a chak on plot nos. 184 and 185, out of which plot no.185 is his original holding. Thus, both the petitioner as also respondent no.4 have been allocated their respective chaks comprising of some area of their original holding and some other plots. The allocation of chak made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is equitable inasmuch as both the parties have been given chaks comprising of some area of their original holding.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that plot no.184 is the original holding of the petitioner and as such he ought to have been given chak on the said plot.
It is not that the petitioner has not been given any portion of his original holding in his chak by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. As is clear from the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioner has been given a chak on his original holding comprised in gata no.34 which was his largest original holding. During the consolidation operation, demand of every single tenure holder cannot be fulfilled. The consolidation authorities/courts if are mandated to allot a chak on all the original holdings of all the tenure holders, it will become almost impossible to carry out the consolidation operations. This Court will also be loath in interfering with the orders passed by the courts below in the proceedings related to allocation of chaks unless there appears any clear violation of the principles of the consolidation as enunciated in Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, if the orders impugned in this petition are tested, I do not see any good ground to interfere in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has sown paddy crops on the land in question.
In the aforesaid view, it is directed that chak pariwartan on the spot, if it has already not taken place, shall take place in terms of the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation within a week after Deepawali Festival and the petitioner shall be permitted to harvest paddy crops sown by him.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Renu/-