B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 31 -5 -1984 (Annexure '2' to the petition), order dated 31 -1 -1985 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 20 -4 -1989 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur in the proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the Petitioners' objection under Section 20 of the Act was rejected by the Consolidation Officer and their appeal failed and the revision filed by them also met the same fate. The present petition has been filed against the aforesaid orders of the Consolidation Authorities.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. It has been urged that the Petitioners wanted chak over plot No. 886 whereas they have been given a chak over plot No. 625. This fact has been mentioned on page 20 of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. It was further urged that out of chak formed on plot No. 825 and the Petitioners' original plot 16 annas valuation may be deducted and that may be added in plot No. 866 and that the Petitioners may be given chak on their largest holding and this has not been done by the consolidation authorities and hence their orders are manifestly erroneous. Kehar Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Unreported Revenue Cases 1974 p. 380 was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, la that case the words 'as far as possible' as used in Section 19 of the Act have been explained. It has been held that so far as it is practicable the Assistant Consolidation Officer should do what is laid down in Section 19(2)(b), unless it is possible for him to do 10 he has no discretion in the matter and is bound to do what the legislature requires him to do. He has discretion only when It is not possible for him to do so and the legislature had to provide for the contingency in which It was not practicable to comply with the provisions of Section 19(2)(b). It has further been provided In that case that if a large number of tenure -holders were close to one another It would be Impossible for each one of them to be allotted a compact area in that block.
(3.) IN the Instant case I have looked Into the judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Joint Director of Consolidation and found that the Petitioners have been given chaks over their original plots Nos. 886 and 625 and plot No. 866 was close to the abadi. The clause 'as far as possible' has not been stated in the judgments of either of the authorities, namely, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Joint Director of Consolidation that as far as possible the authorities have applied their mind and it was not possible to allot chak in any other way than what the authorities were doing.;