Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.6.1996 passed by respondent No. 1. The dispute relates to the formation of chaks. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order passed by respondent No. 1. It was urged that under the proviso to clause (b) of sub -section (1) of Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short the Act) the valuation of a tenure holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding by more than 25% of the latter. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the valuation of the plot of respondent No. 2 on the allotment will exceed by 25%. It is not the case of the petitioners that the difference from the area of their original holding is 25% on account of the allotment of chaks in favour of the petitioners. The fact that the area of respondent No. 2 shall differ by more than 25% does not in any way effect the rights of the petitioners.
(2.) THE second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are original tenure holders of Plot No. 560. A portion of the land area 111 Karis, have been allotted to respondent No. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the petitioners are tenure holders of this land to the extent of half share and they have been allotted a land more than half share. The petitioners, therefore, cannot agitate that the share to which they were entitled has not been given to them. The third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 is original tenure holder of plot No. 550 and the same could have been allotted to respondent No. 2 instead of plot No. 560. It is for the consolidation authorities to consider every aspect of the matter and taking into consideration various factors can pass an appropriate order for exclusion or inclusion of any plot in the chak of a tenure holder. The mere fact that respondent No. 2 was original tenure holder of plot No. 550 does not entitle the Consolidation Officer to allot the same plot in his chak.
(3.) THE fourth submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 has been given 110 Karis of Plot No. 560 on the ground that respondent No. 2 has Abadi land in the adjacent plot. It is urged that only for the purpose of extension of Abadi land or using the land for sehan purposes cannot be allotted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision. Jeet Narain v. D.D.C. : RD 1984 10 (H.C.), wherein it was held that no tenure holder can be allotted any land by the consolidation authorities merely for the purpose of extension of Abadi or for using it as Sehan land, if he is not otherwise entitled to get the land allotted to him in his chak near village Abadi. If a tenure holder is holding some land in his original holding near village Abadi he can certainly be allotted the land in his chak to that extent at that place. In Parvez Ahmed v. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1995 RD 346, it has been held that it is not necessary for the consolidation authorities to allot Abadi land to each and every tenure holder. If a person holding land which is of commercial value and near abadi or road side cannot be accommodated then consolidation authorities are required to assign reasons as to why such tenure holder cannot be accommodated. It is not the case of the petitioner, in the present case, that they had their abadi land on Plot No. 560. If it was a case of the petitioners that they had their own Abadi on Plot No. 560 and they would suffer if their such land is taken away, the petitioner could have made a grievance that their plot has been taken away at the cost of other tenure holders. Secondly, the petitioners had half share in Plot No. 560 and they have been given more than half share in this very plot itself. Considering the facts of the present case allotment of 110 Karis of Plot No. 560 in favour of respondent No. 2 cannot be held unjustified and illegal.;