K.N.Misra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-12-79 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Basti. A reference was forwarded under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for providing a Chak road in between the Chaks of Chak holders No. 10 and 69. Petitioner is Chak holder No. 10. He had purchased the Chak land from one Rahmatullah who was the original tenureholder. It was alleged that there was a Chak road towards west of the Chak No. 10 by which Chak holder No. 69 could reach to his Chak. Since petitioner has made certain constructions on his Chak land, hence the passage was blocked. In these circumstances the said reference was made for providing a Chak road. The reference was initially accepted on 22nd September, 1979 but on an application moved by the petitioner, the case was restored. The Deputy Director of Consolidation made a spot inspection on 19-11 -70 and found that a Chak road is necessary from Chak No. 69 for approaching the road. He further found that if such Chak road is provided towards south of Chak No. 10 the existing constructions on Chak No. 10 will not be effected. He, therefore, by the impugned order provided a Chak towards south of Chak No. 10 of 3 Dhurs east west long upto the road. He further directed that the resultant reduction in the area of Chak No. 10 in providing a Chak road towards south of Chak No. 10 be made good by allotting the land of the existing Chak road situate towards west of Chak No. 10. The amendment chart appended to the impugned order discloses that out of plot No. 261/1 M area 2 Biswas which was as rasta (Chak road) has been given in the Chak of the petitioner's transferor Rahmatullah and plot No. 261/1 M area 1 Biswa and 261/1 M area 2 Biswas of the same valuation has been carved out as 'rasta'. Thus by the impugned order the Chak road instead of running towards west of Chak No. 10 has now been provided by the impugned order towards south of Chak No. 10.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally and without jurisdiction in providing a Chak road to individual tenure holder which could not be done by him in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3). In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision Raj Narain v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1981 AWC 833. He also referred to an unreported decision in Civil Misc Writ No. 7791 of 1980 Udai Bhan Dubey v. Sahayak Sanchalak Chakbandi, Lucknow decided on 9-5-82 wherein it has been held that Chak Road and Chak Nali cannot be provided for the benefit of individual tenureholders in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3). No doubt it is correct to say that Chak Road or Chak Nali cannot be provided for the benefit of individual tenureholders in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) and Chak road and Chak Nali can be provided only if they are considered to be in the interest of tenureholders in general, but in the present case since Chak road was already provided to Chak No. 69 and 10 which was running towards east of Chak No. 10, there was no question of providing a new Chak Road to the opposite parties. The Chak road which was running towards west of Chak No. 10 could not be utilised by Chak holder No. 69 on account of certain constructions which were raised on Chak No. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on making spot inspection found that since constructions are situated on Chak No. 10 towards west and as such it would be advisable to provide a Chak road towards south of Chak No. 10 so that the constructions may not be affected. The resultant reduction in the area of Chak No. 10 in providing Chak road towards south of Chak No. 10 has been ordered to be made good by allotting the land of existing Chak road situated towards west of Chak No. 10. Thus no injustice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. The Chak road in question is not a private Chak road allotted to the opposite parties in these proceedings. An alteration has been made in the situation of the existing Chak road as indicated above by the impugned order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has thus not acted illegally or without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) in making alteration in the location of Chak Road already existing towards west of Chak No. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end contended that there was no chak-road situated towards west of the petitioner's Chak No. 10, hence allotment of land in petitioners chak from the alleged 'Rasta' in the west, while providing chak-roads towards south in his chak, is illusory. This fact has been strongly refuted by the opposite parties.
(3.) IF there existed no rasta towards west of chak no. 10 and so the allotment of 2 biswansis of land of the valuation of 0.05 annas from plot No. 261 /1-M (Rasta) as shown in the alteration chart appended to the impugned order dated 10-12-1979, was illusory, the petitioner should have approached Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the error rectified. This question, being disputed question of fact cannot be permitted to be canvassed in the writ petition. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs. Stay order dated 30-5-1980 is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.;