- (1.) THE petitioners have come up with a prayer that the plot no. 133 being contiguous to their abadi over plot no. 132 had been rightly allotted to them and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error by reversing the same and restoring the said plot in favour of the respondent no. 4.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has made a three fold submission that the allotment in favour of the petitioners upto the level of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was justified and was in consonance with Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He further submits that the convenience of the petitioners was taken notice of and the adjustment of the plots has been made so as to bring about compactness whereas the impugned order fragments the land of the petitioners into several chaks. His third submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made adjustment against plots on the basis of an erroneous assumption as pleaded by the respondent that plot no. 133 is near his abadi. Sri Mishra has emphasised that this statement made by the respondent is incorrect and against record and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Sri Mishra has further invited the attention of the court to Section 19 of the C.H. Act to contend that the impugned order being not in conformity with the same, and the allotment being illegal, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. For this, he further invites the attention of the court to the map on record to contend that the original holding of the petitioners is over plot no. 132 and therefore they have been rightly accommodated over plot no. 133 to the extent indicated in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The reversal of the same by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has come without taking notice of this important aspect of the matter. Having heard Sri Om Prakash Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it appears that the contesting respondent is the original tenure holder of plot no. 133. Not only this, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that plot no. 133 is in the vicinity of the habitation of the village. This fact is also corroborated by the averments of the petitioners themselves that they also have their habitation over plot no. 132.
(3.) THE contention of Sri Mishra that the contesting respondents should have their habitation over their original holding to maintain their claim is erroneous, inasmuch as, Section 19 emphasises that allotment should be made as far as possible in the vicinity of the improvements of the tenure holder. This does not mean that one who does not have any constructions or improvements over his agricultural land which is near the vicinity of habitation, has to be sent away somewhere else. THE respondents were deprived of their original holding over plot no. 133 which was near the vicinity of the habitation of the village and which is a relevant factor for restoring the land of the contesting respondents. THE argument which was accepted for the petitioners by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is equally available to the respondents in such a situation. The petitioners wanted to further consolidate their holding over plot no. 132 along with plot no. 133 which was not their original holding. The petitioners therefore cannot be said to have been inconvenienced as against the respondents who had lost their original holding. This finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not be effectively assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The submission raised therefore on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be rejected.;