Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2008, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, as contained in Annexure -7 to the writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are tenure holders of Plot No. 918 and Plot No. 916, which were the largest original holdings of the petitioners. At the time of consolidation proceedings, the Assistant Consolidation Officer after doing physical verification of the plots of the petitioners carved out the chaks at their original holdings of Plot No. 918 area 0.640 hect. and 916 area 0.200 hect. in compliance of Section 19(1)(e) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioners were satisfied with the carvation of their chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer at their original holdings. The opposite party no. 2 feeling aggrieved against the carvation of chaks of the petitioners, filed objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming that as Plot No. 734 is his largest original holding, therefore, he should have allotted largest chak at his original holding. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.04.2006 modified the chak of the opposite party no. 2, but the opposite party no. 2 was not satisfied with the modification of his chaks by the Consolidation Officer. The opposite party no. 2 feeling aggrieved against the order dated 18.04.2006 of the Consolidation Officer filed time barred appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation claiming that since Gata No. 734 is his original holdings, therefore, he should have allotted chak at his original holding. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal of opposite party no. 2 by means of order dated 05.10.2006. The opposite party no. 2 feeling aggrieved with the order dated 05.10.2006 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation filed belated revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation claiming therein that since he has only Gata No. 734 of his original holding, therefore, he should have allotted chak on his original holding and if it is not possible then his chak should be allotted at Gata No. 914. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of the revisionist, the opposite party no. 2 herein, vide order dated 28.05.2008 and allotted the chak to the opposite party no. 2 at Gata No. 914 depriving the petitioners from their original holdings. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki the petitioners have compelled to approach this Court by means of present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court reported in, 2004 (22) LCD 736, Shyam Behari vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others. Para -9 of the judgment read as under: - 9. Therefore, as far as possible all the conditions which are prescribed under the aforesaid section has to be adhered to by the Consolidation Authorities. But the intention appears to be that the allotment in respect of chaks has to be made looking to the interest of all the villagers at large. Interest of one individual is not only to be taken into account. A particular chak holder cannot claim that all the conditions that are laid down under the consolidation scheme should be satisfied in so far as he alone is concerned, as the process of compulsory consolidation is very difficult and complicated and there is no straight road back towards consolidation. The conditions by the consolidation scheme are to be fulfilled "as for as possible", the phrase which really means that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow them in particular circumstances of a case.;