LAWS(ALL)-2025-11-115

LOLARAK NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

Decided On November 21, 2025
Lolarak Nath Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is chak holder No. 408 and private respondents are chak holder No. 434. The original holdings of the petitioner are 325, 355/787 having 1/2 share i.e. 0.101 hectare. Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted single chak to the petitioner on Plot Nos. 403 and 580 area 0.121 hectare. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer chak objection was filed by the petitioner. Consolidation Officer rejected the chak objection filed by the petitioner, accordingly, chak appeal under Sec. 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 25/5/2018 with the prayer that the petitioner should be allotted chak on their original plot Nos. 325 and 355/787. One appeal was filed by the Mithai Lal(chak holdar No. -266). Appeal filed by the petitioner was registered as Appeal No. 402/551/ 2018-2019 and appeal filed by Mithai Lal was registered as Appeal No. 400/547/ 2018-2019. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 15/11/2018 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the appeal filed by Mithai Lal was also allowed in part. Under the appellate order, petitioner was adjusted on Plot Nos. 355/787, 349 and 352. Against the appellate order dtd. 15/11/2018, one chak revision was filed by the petitioners and two more revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Revision filed by petitioner was registered as Revision No. 1460 of 2022-2023, revision filed by Satya Narain and others was registered as Revision No. 1447 of 2022-2023, revision filed by Mithai Lal was registered as Revision No. 1461 of 2022-2023. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 25/2/2023 allowed all the three revisions setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dtd. 15/11/2018. Mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed a Writ- B No. 1930 of 2023 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dtd. 7/7/2023 setting aside the revisional order dtd. 25/2/2023 and matter was re-mitted back before the revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. In pursuance of the order of this Court dtd. 7/7/2023, aforementioned three revisions were registered on their original number and heard afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 28/3/2025 dismissed all the three revisions recording finding that appellate order was passed in proper manner adjusting tenure holder on their original plots in view of the provisions contained under U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chak revision filed by petitioner has not been decided in the light of the provisions contained under Sec. 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is small tenure holder, as such, he should be allotted chak on his original Plot Nos. 325 and 355/787 according to the share of the petitioner. He further submitted that the relief was granted in appeal in part, accordingly, chak revision was filed but Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the petitioner's revision on misconceived ground. He further submitted that improvement made by the petitioner on his chak but Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the improvement made by the petitioner over his chak and dismissed the revision in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned revisional order should be set aside and petitioner should be allotted chak on his original plot as claimed by him in the chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision.