- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that by a writ of certiorari the order dated 29-7-86 (Annexure VII), passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Basti, respondent No. 1 be quashed.
(2.) THE dispute relates to carvation of Chaks. Originally, the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) had allotted a Chak at some other place. THE Dy. Director of Consolidation (DDC) by exercising the jurisdiction vested on him for correcting the illegality and judging propriety in the judgment of the lower court, changed the location of the Chak. THErefore, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner resides in village Khadera Ganesh. The respondents reside in Khaderia Buzurg, and property lies in an all toget her a third village, although the three villages are contiguous to each other. The conditions to be fulfilled by consolidation scheme as contemplated in Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides in paragraph (c) as follows :. " (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. " Paragraph (f) runs as follows :- " (0 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;" While changing the scheme given by the SOC, the learned D. D. C. took into consideration the provisions of paragraph (f) of Section 19 (1) as quoted above. It cannot be said that he committed any illegality in taking into consideration this provision of law. Of course, the jurisdiction is vested in him to take into consideration the provisions of paragraph (e) quoted above. By taking into consideration paragraph (f), however, he committed no illegality. It is not disputed that at this place, the respondents have a private source of irrigation of their own. This source of irrigation could not be shifted. Therefore, for providing better irrigational facilities at the disputed place, if the respondents had made arrangements of their private source of irrigation, that was a valid consideration, which could not have been ignored by J. D. C. Of course, the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 is unlimited. But at the same time, this Court has no appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by both the courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In these circumstances, I find that no illegality has been com mitted by the J. D. of Consolidation.
(3.) THE writ petition has no force. It is being dismissed. Cost easy. Petition dismissed. .;