- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the orders dated 28-12-2001, 24- 3-2000 and 23-8-1999 passed by the authorities below in the proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short, "the Act". It appears that objection was filed by the petitioner under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act claiming that he should be allotted his Chaks on his original holdings. The objection filed by the petitioner was opposed to and contested by the respondents. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties allotted two Chaks to the petitioner by his order dated 23-8- 1999. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was preferred before Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation upheld the order passed by the Consolidation, Officer substantially and by his order dated 24-3- 2000 he has slightly changed the chak of the petitioner to his advantage. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24-3-2000, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also upheld the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and dismissed the revision by his judgment and order dated 28-12-2001. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be allotted the two Chaks on his original plots, the authorities below have acted illegally in not allotting his chaks on his original land and allotting some land which was unirrigated (Uran) in his Chaks, which is Uran (unirrigated ). On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel supported the validity of the orders passed by the authorities below. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities below are based on material on record. There is no illegality committed by any of the authorities. The authorities below have allotted the chaks as far as possible on the original holdings of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. The authorities below have passed the impugned orders after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record. The findings recorded by authorities below are all findings of fact, which are based on the evidence on record. They cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Every tenure-holder cannot be allotted his chak on his original holding as it is practically not possible, failing which the purpose of the consolidation shall be frustrated. Legally, the original holdings should be allotted as far as possible. In the present case, the authorities below have tried their level best to allot the petitioner his Chaks on his original holdings or could allot a portion of his holding to him as entire original holding could not be allotted to him.;