JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.9.1995 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.10.1994 and 18.7.1995 (Annexures-6 and 7 respectively).
2. For the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, it will be useful to summarize the facts. Proceedings are under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjustment of chaks between the chak holders. Petitioners are chak holder No. 113 whereas respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 281 and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are chak holder No. 280 which was allotted to them at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, At the initial stage petitioners were given two chaks, i.e., 1st on plot No. 282, etc. and second on plot No. 442, etc. Against the proposed allotment petitioners filed objection with the claim that their second chak be abolished and entire land be given on/near plot No. 282. Consolidation Officer allowed petitioners objection. On filing appeal by opposite party judgment of the Consolidation Officer was reversed and petitioners were given three chaks. On the plea that the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was ex parte, restoration was filed by the petitioners which was also dismissed and thereafter revision filed by the petitioners also met to the same fate and thus all the three judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation are under challenge before this Court.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioners claim for grant of one chak on plot No. 282 which happens to be their largest part of holdings was allowed by the Consolidation Officer in the light of the consent given by the Rajkali w/o Shitla Prasad who was mainly affected by that adjustment on account of which petitioners chak became one but the Settlement Officer Consolidation without assigning any reason has disturbed the adjustment as made by the Consolidation Officer on account of which number of chak of the petitioners became three. Submission is that respondents have not filed any objection against the proposed allotment by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and it is only on the petitioner's objection change have taken place and thus in any view of the matter petitioner's position cannot be made more verse, as it stood at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. They were having two chaks to which there was no objection by anybody and now they have been allowed three chaks by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation which on the facts cannot be justified. It is further submitted that order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was in gross violation of principle of natural justice which is clear from the order sheet itself as no notices were ever issued/served on the petitioners. Submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also dismissed the revision without considering petitioner's inconvenience/grievance and the hardship just by simply stating the inconvenience of the opposite parties. Lastly, it is argued that in plot No. 282 petitioners are having their boring and thus they will be deprived of their irrigation facility. On these score prayer for interference in the impugned orders have been made.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, in response to the aforesaid, submitted that all the three chaks of the petitioners are on their original holding as has been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and therefore, no prejudice can be said to have caused to the petitioners by the impugned adjustment. The argument is that averment in respect to the boring in plot No. 282 is afterthought and it has been taken for the first time in the writ petition and it is to strengthen the claim, the boring has been installed after filing of the writ petition and report in this connection has been managed and thus on this score submission is that petitioners cannot claim any advantage. Submission is that in the matter of adjustment of chaks on technical ground no interference is required unless parties are able to prove prejudice on account of impugned arrangement.
5. In view of arguments of both sides, pleadings and the materials which are available before this Court including the judgments of all the three courts have been examined.
6. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that in the matter of adjustment of chaks scope of interference by this Court is limited. There also cannot be two views that in the matter of adjustment both sides in no case can be found to be satisfied as on acceptance of the claim of one party the other side is to remain dissatisfied and thus in that situation convenience and hardship of the parties has to be comparatively weighed. It is to be seen that by accepting a particular set of claim, how other side is placed. The balance is to be maintained in making the adjustment. Needless to say that adjustment of chak has great importance to the chak holders as on its finality parties are to remain contended with the particular piece of land at a particular place for all the times to come and thus if for various kind of hardship, i.e., (i) chak not being near irrigation facility ; (ii) number of chak having been increased ; (iii) land not being of good quality, etc. parties will remain sufferer for ever. On a close look to the plight of the poor farmer in the village it becomes apparent that in small holding some of the tenure holders by growing vegetables or by limited means of irrigation are able to produce the crops to maintain their families and thus if the land allotted in their chak is not convenient for their purpose or number of chaks are increased without any lawful justification and for various other alike reasons if the chak holder is not happy then that is to be rectified by the Court. Certain broad norms have been provided for adjustment of chaks under Section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act. The main thrust of Section 19 of the Act appears to be that ; (i) the land allotted to the tenure holder should not differ from the area of his original holding by more than twenty five per cent; (ii) every tenure holder as far as possible be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holdings; (iii) tenure holder should not be allotted more than three chaks except with the approval in writing, of the Deputy Director of Consolidation; (iv) Every tenure holder as far as possible be allotted plot on which his private source of irrigation or any other improvement is in existence; (v) every tenure holder be allotted as far as possible the chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The intention of providing norms/ guidelines regulating adjustment of chak appears to be that consolidation authorities may not be able to act in arbitrary manner and at the same time interest of tenure holder is protected. The use of words "as far as possible" at various places in Section 19 of the Act has been interpreted by this Court in several cases and it has been ruled that guidelines are to be followed unless it is not possible to follow them in a particular situation of the case. It is in this backdrop the writ petitions coming to this Court against the orders arising out of chak proceedings are to be dealt with. Of course, so far the power of scrutiny by this Court is concerned that is not confined within the ambit of guidelines so provided in Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act as this Court while exercising the equity jurisdiction can always balance the equity in particular set of fact and therefore, it is in each individual case on its particular fact balance of convenience and equity between the parties is to be balanced.
7. So far the case in hand is concerned, admittedly at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer petitioners were given two chaks, i.e., one on plot No. 282, etc. and other on plot No. 442, etc. Against the proposed adjustment by the Assistant Consolidation Officer respondents did not file any objection. It is only the petitioners who filed objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming only one chak on plot No. 282, etc. For accepting the petitioners claim one Rajkali w/o Shitla Prasad whose plot was to be affected gave her consent as has been recorded on 23.7.1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) upon which Consolidation Officer made changes and made their chak to be one in number. Respondents filed appeal. Order sheet on the record demonstrates that on 21.9.1994 there is order for registration of the appeal and thereafter there is order sheet dated 28.10.1994 which states that arguments have been heard at Assistant Consolidation Officer office and then 31.10.1994 was fixed for orders. There is no mention in the order sheet for issuance of the notice to the opposite parties. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate that how and in what manner respondents in the appeal were noticed and served and whether they engaged any counsel. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which appeal of the respondents was allowed on its examination also do not appear to contain any reason whatsoever for making drastic changes in the chak of the petitioners. No reason has been assigned for making chak of the petitioners to be three in number from two. In the event petitioners would not have filed objection before the Consolidation Officer number of their chaks would have remained as two as nobody either objected against the proposal of the chak in favour of the petitioners at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer or has otherwise claimed any change and thus increase in the number of chak of the petitioners as three from two which was originally proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to be without any reason and without any claim in that respect by the opposite parties. Of course, the tenure holders can be allotted two or three chaks but if the number of chak of tenure holder can be minimized and it remains as two or one in number, then that is always to facilitate chak holder in farming and will be convenient in every respect. This is the very purpose of allotment of chak proceedings as in this process various plots of the tenure holders which are if spread here and there they are consolidated and they are made compact at the place where the tenure holder holds largest part of his holdings, as is clear from the provisions as are contained in Section 19 (1) (e) of the U. P. C. H. Act. Thus, in the event Consolidation Officer by accepting petitioners claim of allotment of one compact chak on plot No. 282 in the light of the consent given by Rajkali reduced the number of chak of the petitioners from two to one, it was obligatory on the part of the Settlement Officer Consolidation to have assigned cogent reasons to unsettle that arrangement. Material before this Court and the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation makes it clear that reversal of the adjustment, as made by the Consolidation Officer was neither made after an opportunity in any manner to the petitioners nor any reason has been assigned for doing the same. Deputy Director of Consolidation, of course, has stated in his judgment that opposite parties on acceptance of the petitioners claim will not be having their chaks on their original holding but at the same time it is clear that opposite parties have not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer in respect to their grievance, if any, and therefore, for making position of the petitioners more worse than it was at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer it is clear that neither Settlement Officer Consolidation nor Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned any ground and thus the matter needs deeper attention. There appears to be a dispute regarding existence of the boring in plot No. 282, as claimed by the petitioners in para 2 of the writ petition and in certain documents as has been filed before this Court, but as the impugned judgment has been found to be faulty on other grounds it will be for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the disputed question of fact about existence of the boring in plot No. 282 in the light of the rival claim/pleadings. On the fact of the present case for the reasons indicated above, this Court is satisfied that two chaks as was proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was reduced to one in number by the Consolidation Officer with the consent of the Rajkali was cancelled by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and was made three in number without assigning any reason whatsoever and without any notice/opportunity to the petitioners on account of which petitioners apparently suffered serious prejudice. Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned the convenience of the opposite parties but at the same time it is clear that he has not considered the inconvenience and the hardship which is being claimed by the petitioners and thus this Court is satisfied that matter needs fresh examination by the revisional court in the light of the rival claim/pleadings. It is to made clear that this Court has not examined and expressed any opinion in respect to correctness or otherwise about the claim of either of the parties and thus it is open for the revisional court to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, keeping in mind the equity between the parties.
8. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.9.1995 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.10.1994 and 18.7.1995 (Annexures-6 and 7 respectively to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the revisional court for fresh decision, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by either of the parties, without allowing any unwarranted adjournment to them.