S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.7.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.10.2002 was set aside and the plot Nos. 203 and 205 were ordered to be re -situated accordingly in terms of the order dated 16.9.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while dealing with the petitioners' appeal, condoned the delay spreading over nine years in filing the appeal and directed plots 203/2 admeasuring 2 Biswas and Plot No. 203/3 2 Biswas and 16 Dhoors to be allotted to petitioners that while reversing judgment passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally in interfering with the discretion of the appellate authority in refusing to extend benefit of condonation of delay and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was further urged that the delay was fully explained and still, the Deputy Director took a contrary view. It was lastly urged that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director are misconceived and consequently the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri D.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is explicit that the petitioners approached this Court earlier twice. This Court while dismissing writ petition on 6.12.1991 observed that the writ petitioners of that petition were aggrieved against proposal and therefore, they ought to have filed objection under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act. As a sequel to the above observation made while dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners filed objection before the Consolidation Officer, which did not find favour and was dismissed on 16.9.1992. Against that order, the petitioners preferred appeal on 1.5.2002. In the meantime, the petitioners filed objection under Section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for declaring plot Nos. 203, 204 and 205 as Chak -out which the Consolidation Officer allowed by means of order dated 29.8.1992 but the said order was reversed in appeal by means of judgment and order dated 27.11.1992 which received affirmance in revision by revisional order dated 31.12.2001. A writ petition bearing No. 2901 of 2002 preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 22.1.2002. The effect flowing from the above conspectus boils down that the plots in question continued to endure under the consolidation scheme. From a scanning of the text of the order passed in appeal it surfaces that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation has not assigned any reason for his satisfaction for condonation of delay and consequently, respondent was allotted the disputed land by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Objection under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act to the allotment of the disputed plots was rejected on 16.9.1992. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal or revision under the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act for about nine years. No cogent or convincing ground has been spelt out and therefore, the revisional authority rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed an appeal on 1.5.2002. No explanation was offered explaining this period for condonation of delay also and the period between 22.1.2003 to 1.5.2003. I have also been taken through materials on record and it is ex facie clear from C.H. Form No. 23 pertaining to petitioners Ramai and Sumai that they were allotted plots 203/2, 204/2, 205/2 and 205/3 admeasuring 15 Biswas, 13 Dhur to form part of their chaks and these plots were sold off by the petitioners to one Abdul Qayum, and Mohd. Umar sons of Talukdar and Mati Ullah and others after the allotment. The other co -tenure holders Chanai was also allotted Chak on plot No. 203/3, 204/3, 205/3 and 201/3 admeasuring 7 Biswas and 16 Dhoors.
(3.) IN the perspective of narration of the above facts, it would crystallise that petitioners were given chaks on their original holding. It is also clear from the record that only the area admeasuring two Biswas and 18 Dhoors was allotted to the petitioners at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. In the village, proceedings under Section 9 were published on 11.10.1988. It is discernible that the petitioners manoeuvered for declaring the plots in question out of consolidation but the efforts of the petitioner aborted with the dismissal of writ petition on 22.1.2002 which had been filed assailing the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. It is also event from the record that with requisite permission by the competent authority, some constructions were raised by the contesting opposite parties. It should be worthy of notice here that under the Consolidation Scheme, it is next to impossible for anyone to expect that he should be allotted chaks out of his holding with mathematical precision and a little variation this way or that way is bound to occur. In my opinion, the petitioners having been allotted chak on their original holding which position has been maintained by Deputy Director of Consolidation, I do not see any error or infirmity pervading the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Before parting with the discussion, I should ventilate my view point on the aspect. No doubt, Section 19(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act contains mandate of the Legislature which is implicit in the guidelines to the Consolidation authorities. One of the guidelines postulates that as far as possible, tenure holder should be allotted chak at the place where he holds the largest part of his original holding. In the present case, the Assistant Consolidation Officer with regard being had to the principles of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, did allot one chak to the petitioners on their holding, i.e., plot Nos. 203 to 205 the details of which have been enumerated (supra). As stated supra. It is not possible to allot every inch of his original holding to a tenure holder in his chak. In my opinion, the Assistant Consolidation Officer made allotment considering the principles aforestated and by this reckoning, it cannot be said that the mandate, of the Legislature was infringed upon. In my considered view, the allotment of 2 biswas and 18 Doors of land to the opposite party did not constitute violation of any statutory rule particularly when major part of the original holding of the petitioner had been reassigned to them in the consolidation proceeding. As stated supra, the petitioners have already sold off the part of chaks in question to Abdul Qayum and Mohd. Umar and others and in the circumstances, the petitioners could not be said to have any surviving grievance to merit interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution.;