A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) AGAINST the proposed allotment of chaks, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as an 'Act') before the Consolidation Officer. The claim of the petitioner was that plot No. 651 was his largest and most fertile holding with a private source of irrigation, therefore, he be allotted chak on the said plot. The Consolidation Officer vide its judgment and, order dated 17.6.2002 allowed the claim of the petitioner and he was allotted two chaks, i.e., one at plot No. 651 and the order at plot No. 526. Both the said chaks were carved out at the original holdings of the petitioner. Still not satisfied he approached the opposite party No. 2 in appeal under Section 21 of the Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide its judgment and order dated 3.5.2003 dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the claim of the petitioner has been allowed and he has been allotted two chaks at his original holdings, therefore, there was no ground for any interference in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.
(2.) BEING aggrieved against the order of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act. The opposite party No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2004 dismissed the Revision and reiterated the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. It is against the said orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of the provision of Section 19 of the Act every tenure holder should be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. According to him since he had been allotted two chaks and not a compact area as contemplated under Section 19, therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities is bad and manifestly erroneous. His submission further is that the Consolidation Authorities declined to allot him with the original area that was earlier existing and a lesser area has been allotted. In this connection he also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Bechan Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1985 RD 359. On the basis of the said judgment the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that allotment of chak has to be made consistent with the provision of Section 19 of the Act. His submission is that the principle enunciated under the said section contemplates that every tenure holder should be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holdings and further he should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement.
(3.) SECTION 19 of the Act is reproduced hereunder : "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfil the following conditions, namely : (a) the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder in the annual register prepared under SECTION 10, are subject to the deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, secured in the land allotted to him ; (b) the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, in equal to the valuation of plots originally held by him : Provided that, except the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty-five per cent of the latter : (c) the compensation deter-mined under the provisions of this Act, or the rules framed there-under, is awarded : (1) to the tenure-holder : (i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure-holder, and (ii) for land contributed by him for public purposes ; (2) to the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority, as the case may be, for development, if any, effected by it in or over land belonging to it and allotted to a tenure-holder ; (d) the principles laid down in the Statement of Principles are followed ; (e) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding : Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more chaks than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation ; (f) every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots, originally held by him there ; and (g) every tenure-holder is , as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units. (2) A Consolidation Scheme before it is made final under SECTION 23, shall be provisionally drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Scheme 19A. As would appear from the perusal of the aforesaid provision, every tenure holder, as far as possible shall be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. It further postulates that every tenure holder as far as possible be allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation and also where his private sources of irrigation exists. The proviso appended to Section 19 lays down that no tenure holder may be allotted more chaks than 3 except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. What is clearly decipherable from the aforesaid proviso is that even more than 3 chaks can also be allotted to the tenure holder, but with the prior approval of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the case at hand the petitioner has been allotted two chaks and both on his original holding.;