# Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 258
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 22455 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47042
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings
Act,
1953-Section
19(1)(e)-
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
Allotments of chaks-petitioner was given
two chaks in which one chak was at a
distance of 3 km from the villagepetitioner moved an objection before the
Consolidation officer-prayed that chak
should
be
carved
over
Bachat
land
belonging to Gaon Sabha as Gaon Sabha
has no objection inorder to facilitate
cultivation. (Para 1 to 33)

B. the principles laid down in Section 19
are guiding factors hedged by the phrase:-
" as far as possible"k only to better
facilitate consolidation and allotment of
compact
areas
to
facilitate
better
utilization of land and other resources.
section
19
only
provides
relates
to
allotment to a tenureholder of chak upon
the land to which he has already made
some improvements, requires authorities
to allot to a tenure holder chak over
largest part of his holding.(Para 28) (E-5)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,947 of 45,353. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39947 for what follows._

258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation and the Joint Director of
Consolidation on the basis of family register
and uncertified copy of the voter list have
come to the conclusion that Sahdei was the
daughter of Smt. Maina and the opposite
party no.3 was the son of Sahdei. Whereas
Sahdei has been shown as wife of Shree at
one place and as daughter of Shree at another
place. Therefore, first it is to be ascertained
on the basis of cogent evidence, if any
available on record, as to whether Sahdei was
the daughter of Sheetal and Smt. Maina and
the opposite party no.3 was the son of Sahdei
and in case on the basis of some cogent
evidence it is found that opposite party no.3
was the son of daughter of Smt.Maina, he
may get the land in dispute as discussed
above and in accordance with law failing
which the interest shall stand extinguished on
the death of Smt. Maina under Section 189 of
the Act of 1950 and the Land Management
Committee
shall
be
entitled
to
take
possession of the land under Section 194 of
the Act of 1950 and accordingly it may be
considered and the order may be passed
under Section 11-C of the Act of 1953.

28. In view of above, this court is of the
considered opinion that the writ petition is
liable to be partly allowed and the matter is to
be remanded to the Settlement Officer
Consolidation to re-consider the case afresh
in the light of aforesaid discussion only to the
extent as to whether the opposite party no.3
was a legal heir of the male lineal descendant
after reversion of the property after death of
Smt. Maina and if so whether the same shall
devolve on him in accordance with law or
not, failing which the decision shall be taken
in light of the observations made here-inabove under Section 11-C of the Act of 1953.

29. With the aforesaid the writ
petition is partly allowed. The impugned
order dated 24.05.1980 passed by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Sultanpur in Revision No.5989/2884, under
Section 48 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act is quashed and the order
dated 26.06.1975 passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer Consolidation is also
quashed to the extent of continuance of the
entry of basic year and the order is upheld
to the extent of quashing of the order
passed by the Consolidation Officer. The
matter is remanded to the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur to decide
a fresh in light of the observations made
here-in-above.

30. The matter being old, shall be
decided expeditiously say within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Let a copy of
this
order
be
communicated
to
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
Sultanpur forthwith.

31. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)06ILR A258
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Consolidation No. 22455 of 2020

Rakesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Pratap Singh 'Vatsa'

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings
Act,
1953-Section
19(1)(e)-
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
Allotments of chaks-petitioner was given
two chaks in which one chak was at a
distance of 3 km from the villagepetitioner moved an objection before the
Consolidation officer-prayed that chak
should
be
carved
over
Bachat
land
belonging to Gaon Sabha as Gaon Sabha
has no objection inorder to facilitate
cultivation. (Para 1 to 33)

B. the principles laid down in Section 19
are guiding factors hedged by the phrase:-
" as far as possible"k only to better
facilitate consolidation and allotment of
compact
areas
to
facilitate
better
utilization of land and other resources.
section
19
only
provides
relates
to
allotment to a tenureholder of chak upon
the land to which he has already made
some improvements, requires authorities
to allot to a tenure holder chak over
largest part of his holding.(Para 28) (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. I have heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
Vats for the petitioner and Shri Upendra
Singh Learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of the State Respondents. The
petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the Consolidation Officer dated 11.10.2019
and also the order passed by the Settlement
Officer Consolidtaion dated 16.11.2019 and
the rejection of his Revision by the Deputy
Director, Consolidation, by order dated
08.01.2020.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in
the
proposal
made
by
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was
given two Chaks, one over Gata number
8Min, admeasuring 1.439 ha, and the other
over Gata number 138Min along with 139
Min and 141 Min, admeasuring 1.337 ha.
The petitioner's Chak over Gata number 8
Min was over his original holding but it was
at a distance of about 3 km from the village
therefore the petitioner moved an objection
before the Consolidation Officer, Biswa,
praying that his chak should be carved over
Gata numbers 155 and 156, which were
marked as Bachat land belonging to Gaon
Sabha instead of over Gata number 8 Min.
The land situated in Gata number 155 in 156
was in the vicinity of his house and of the
village and it would lead to facilitating
cultivation in a better manner in comparison
to carrying out agricultural activities over
land which was situated at a distance from
the village as the petitioner intended to farm
vegetables which required constant attention.

3. The demand made by the petitioner
for conversion of his Chak over Gata number
155 in 156 was refused by the Consolidation
Officer on the ground that the petitioner
already had two chaks and giving him a Chak
over Gata numbers 155 and 156 would mean
that he would have three Chaks in the village,
and also because Gata number 155 and 156
were not part of his original holding, and
therefore carving out a Chak over them for
him would mean allotment of an Udaan chak.

4. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Bachat land
being that of the Gram Sabha and there being
no objections from the Gram Sabha, his
request ought to have been allowed by the
Consolidation Officer.

It has been further argued that the
grounds taken by the Consolidation Officer
for rejection of his objections are against the
statutory provisions given under section 19
(1) (e) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act").

5. It has been submitted that a perusal
of section 19 (1)e of the Act would show
that the proviso to the same makes it
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permissible to allot three Chaks. Also, it
provides for allotment of Chak at a place
where the tenure holder has the largest part
of his holding "as far as possible". The
basic reason for providing Chak over
original holding is to save the interest of
the tenure holder and such tenure holder
has every right to forego such a privilege.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the phrase "as far as possible"
only envisages convenience of the tenure
holder. Also Section 19(1)(e) does not
prohibit allotment of Udaan Chak or three
Chaks to a tenure holder. More so, there
was no objection by the Gram Sabha in
whose name the Bachat land was recorded.

6. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner preferred an Appeal to the
Settlement Officer Consolidtaion but by the
order dated 16.11.2019 his Appeal has been
rejected on the same grounds as taken by
the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner
approached the D.D.C. in Revision but the
same has also been rejected, this time
taking different grounds altogether.

7. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the purpose
of the Act is to facilitate a tenure holder in
order to undertake better cultivation and the
request for allotment of the said Gata
numbers 155 and 156 was rejected only on
the ground that it would lead to three Chaks
being allotted to the petitioner which
amounted to arbitrary exercise of power.
The "proviso" appended to section 19 1(e)
of the Act makes it permissible to allot
three Chaks. The factors given under
section 19 (1) (e) of the Act are merely
directory in nature, the phrase "as far as
possible" being not mandatory, and not
accompanied
by
any
sanction,
the
Consolidation Officer could have allotted a
third Chak over Bachat land which land did
not belong to anyone except for the Gram
Sabha, which had not objected to such a
request.

8. The learned Standing Counsel on
the other hand has argued that there was no
legal right of the petitioner that he be
allotted land as per his choice. He has
placed reliance upon judgements rendered
by other Coordinate Benches of this Court
in the cases of Ram Bachan vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Varanasi 2001
(supplement) RD 847, and Smt Jagwanta v
DDC, 2002 (93) RD 602. In Ram Bachan
versus Deputy Director of Consolidation
Varanasi (supra), the petitioner filed an
objection regarding the land in dispute that
it was liable to be allotted to him as the
same was situated near his house. On the
other hand, the respondent claimed that the
land in dispute was not a part of the
original land of the petitioner therefore he
had no right to get the same allotted in his
favour. The Court observed that the
petitioner had no legal right to claim
allotment of land in dispute in his favour
only because the said land was situated
near his house.

9. In Smt. Jagwanta (supra), the
petitioner had prayed for allotment of
certain land which was proposed to be
allotted to another, only on the ground that
it was being used by her as a manure pit.
The Consolidation Officer rejected the
claim on the ground that the said plot was
never earmarked for manure pit and
therefore, the petitioner had no right to get
the same allotted in her name. The
Consolidation authorities had given a
finding that from the map available on
record it was apparent that between the
house of the petitioner and the plot in
dispute there was a Chakk Road. Therefore
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
the plot number 50 could not be said to be
an adjoining plot; that the petitioner was
not the original tenure holder of the said
plot; and though the original tenure holder
of the plot initially did not raise any
objection with respect to allotment of plot
number 50, however, that would not give
any right to the petitioner for allotment of
the said plot. The Court upheld the findings
and recorded that plot number 50 was not
originally a part of the petitioner's holding,
therefore she could not claim the allotment
of the said plot as of right, even if the
provisions of Section 19 of the UP
Consolidation of Holdings Act are held to
be mandatory, although they are not, as has
been held by this Court in several of its
decisions.

10. The counsel for the State
Respondents has also argued that the
petitioner did not stand to lose anything by
refusal of his claim by the Consolidation
Authorities. None of the his legal rights had
been infringed. He has also placed reliance
upon paragraph 8 of Bhola Rai versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
Azamgarh and others 2004 (96) RD 673;
where a Coordinate Bench of this Court
was considering the allegation made by the
petitioner that the respondent had been
allotted land which was the original
holding of her husband and that the
petitioners''
'original
holding'
which
consisted of 31 plots was therefore reduced
in area. In the counter affidavit it came out
that the plots allotted to the contesting
respondent were part of the original
holding of her husband. The Court perused
the Chak map prepared at the stage of
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation.
It
observed that the original holding of the
husband of the contesting respondent on
plot number 829 and 853 and 854, was
rightly excluded from the petitioner's Chak
and he was allotted plots on his original
holding. The Court observed that the
petitioner's Chak was still on the main road
and major part of plot number 838 was still
with the petitioner and apart from that he
was also allotted plot number 839 situated
on the main road, though it was not part of
his original holding. In sum and substance,
the petitioner's original holding on plot
number 838 had an area of 370 Are, on the
roadside, but by the orders impugned he
had been allotted plot number is 838 and
839 total area 680 Are, on the roadside and
no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
The court observed that the petitioner could
not claim, as a matter of right, for allotment
of original holding of others in his chak.
The chak map also made it clear that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation allotted
just double the area to the petitioner's
original Holding on the roadside. There
was no illegality or violation of principles
as laid down in section 19 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, nor any
prejudice was shown to have been caused
to the petitioner by the order of the Deputy
Director
Consolidation.
The
petition
therefore was dismissed.

11. Learned Standing Counsel has
argued that the Consolidation Officer
rightly rejected the petitioners objections as
it is evident from a perusal of the pleadings
on record, including the memo of the
Revision filed by the petitioner, that the
petitioner had been initially proposed two
chaks of land which land comprised of part
of his original holding on Gata number 8
Min. and the petitioner wanted that some
part of his Chak on Gata number 8 should
be allowed to be surrendered by him, and
that he may be granted a third Chak on
Gata numbers 155 and 156 which were
Bachat land, and over which admittedly the
petitioner had no right. The petitioner
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimed allotment of such land only on the
ground that it was situated near his
residence.

12. It has been argued by the learned
Standing
Counsel
that
Section
19
enumerates the factors that have to be kept
in mind while making allotment of Chaks.
As has been held by this Court, such factors
are the guiding principles and if chak
allotment is done keeping in mind such
principles and no illegality or infirmity is
shown in the orders passed by the
Consolidation Officer, this Court in Writ
jurisdiction should not ordinarily interfere
in orders passed by the learned courts
below.

13. The learned Standing Counsel has
argued that the petitioner was demanding
allotment of chak over Bachat land which
was the land to be used for common
purpose. The learned counsel for the State
Respondents has also placed reliance upon
a judgment by the Supreme Court in
Johrimal versus Director of Consolidation
of Holdings, Punjab 1967(3)SCR 286;
where the Supreme Court was considering
the provisions of East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation
and
Prevention
of
Fragmentation) Act 1948. The Scheme
proposed under the said Punjab Act
provided that owners of permanent 'ghers'
or enclosures will be permitted to retain
them in their possession. One of the
proprietors, Johrimal, made a 'gher' in
Khasra number 3942 and under the
Scheme, this was to remain with him. The
Director of Consolidation on the other hand
reconsidered the matter and ordered that
this particular piece of land i.e. Khasra
number 3942, should be reserved for
extension of Abadi for non-proprietors. The
Director of Consolidation accordingly
ordered that instead of being reserved for
Johrimal, the plot should be kept for nonproprietors. Johrimal challenged the said
order before the High Court and the Single
Judge allowed the petition. Against this
order the Director, Consolidation appealed
under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent which
was heard by a Full Bench, which by
judgement dated 08.11.1960, allowed the
appeal and reversed the order of the learned
Single Judge and ordered that the writ
petition should be dismissed. Johrimal
challenged the said order before the
Supreme Court.

14. The Supreme Court observed that
the Punjab Act was passed to provide for
compulsory consolidation of agricultural
holdings
and
for
preventing
their
fragmentation. Section 15 required the
Consolidation Officer to provide for
payment of compensation to any owner
who was allotted a holding of less market
value than his original holding and for the
recovery of compensation from any owner
who was allotted a holding of greater
market value than that of his original
holding.
The
Consolidation
Officer's
Scheme was subject to Appeal before the
Settlement Officer, Consolidtaion, and a
person aggrieved by the order of this
Settlement Officer, Consolidtaion, could
appeal to the State Government. Even
where no appeal, was filed, the State
Government could at any time, for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality
or propriety of any order passed by the
Officers under the Act, call for and
examine the records of any case pending
before or disposed of by such Officer, and
could pass such order in Reference thereto
as it thought fit, after giving opportunity of
hearing to those who would be affected by
such order. The Punjab Government by a
notification had made Rules for reservation
of Abadi land for proprietors as well as
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
non-proprietors. The land reserved for
extension of Abadi was to be divided into
plots of suitable sizes. For the plots allotted
to proprietors, area of equal value was to be
deducted from their holdings, but in case of
non-proprietors including Harijan families,
they were to be allotted without payment of
compensation and they were to be deemed
to be owners of the plots allotted to them.
In any estate or estates where during
consolidation proceedings there was no
Shamlat Deh land, or such land was
considered inadequate, land would be
reserved for village Panchayat out of the
common
pool
of
the
village,
and
proprietary rights in respect of such lands
so reserved, would vest in the Panchayat of
the estate or estates concerned and on
behalf of the village the Panchayat would
have the right to utilise income derived
from such plots which were reserved for
common needs and for the benefit of the
estate or the estates concerned.

15. The Supreme Court held in
Johrimal (supra) that the power given to
the State Government under section 42 of
the Punjab Act was to review any order
passed or scheme prepared or confirmed on
a petition made by any Officer under the
Punjab Act. There was a requirement in the
Statute that before a valid scheme could be
published, the State Government after
notice and giving an opportunity to the
interested persons to be heard, could make
such variation as was required in public
interest. Section 42 of the Punjab Act by
which the State Government had to
exercise
such
power
also
permitted
delegation of such power to the Director of
Consolidation which was done in this case.
It was also observed by the Supreme Court
that the legislature could not have intended
that land should be taken from proprietors
only for common purposes. The intention
must be that all proprietors should
contribute rateably for such purposes. Land
reserved for common purpose was to be
under the management of the Panchayat
and to be used for common needs and
benefits of the estates concerned.

16. The Supreme Court relied upon
Attar Singh vs. State of U.P. 1959
Supplement SCR 928; where the Court was
considering a similar provision in a similar
Act (the U.P. Act) and had observed that
the land which is taken over is a small bit,
which sold by it self would hardly fetch
anything.

"The small bits of land are collected
from
various
tenure
holders
and
consolidated in one place and added to the
land which might be lying vacant so that it
may be used for the purposes of section 14
(e). A compact area is thus created and it is
used for the purposes of the tenure holders
themselves and other villagers.Form CH 41
framed under Rule 41 (a) shows the
purposes to which this land would be
applied, namely, (1),plantation of trees, (2)
pasture land, (3)manure pits,(4) threshing
floor, (5)cremation ground, (6)graveyards,
(7)primary or other schools, (8)Play
ground,(9) Panchayatghar and (10) such
other objects. These small bits of land that
are acquired from tenure holders are
consolidated and used for these purposes,
which are directly for the benefit of the
tenure holders. They are deprived of a
small bit and in place of it they are given
advantages in a much larger area of land
made up of the small bits and also of
vacant land."

In other words the proprietor gets
advantages which he could never have got
apart from the Scheme. For example, if one
wanted a threshing floor, a manure pit, land
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for pasture, etc he would not have been
able to have them on the fraction of his
land reserved for common purposes.

17. The Supreme Court also answered
the question in Attar Singh (supra)
"whether taking away property from the
proprietors amounted to acquisition by the
State of any land?" The Supreme Court
answered the question by asking further
questions as to who was the real
beneficiary?, 'was it the Panchayat or any
other body?' It was observed that "The title
remained in the proprietary body i.e. the
village Panchayat and in the revenue
records the land would be shown as
belonging ''to all the owners and other
right holders in proportion to their areas'.
The Panchayat would manage it on behalf
of the proprietors and use it for common
purposes; it could not use it for any other
purpose. The proprietors continued to
enjoy the benefits derived from the use of
and for common purposes. Although the
non-proprietors would also derive benefits
but their satisfaction and advancement
enures in the end to the advantage of all the
proprietors in the form of a more efficient
agricultural community. The Panchayat as
such does not enjoy any benefit. ...., it
seems to us that the beneficiary of the
modification of rights is not the State, and
therefore there is no acquisition by the
State within the second proviso".

18. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder that
Bachat land is different from reserved land,
and the petitioner was not asking for any
part of his Chak to be carved out of
reserved land. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a
judgement rendered by a Coordinate Bench
of this court in case of Ram Kumar and
another
versus
Ziladhikari/
D.D.C.
Muzaffar Nagar 2002 (93) RD 403,
wherein
the
coordinate
bench
after
considering Section 19 A of the Act had
observed that it shall be lawful for the
Assistant Consolidation Officer, where in
his opinion it is necessary or expedient to
do so, to allot Chak on Bachat land, after
determining the valuation of any land
belonging to the State Government or any
other local authority. It only requires the
Assistant Consolidation Officer to declare
in writing that it is proposed to transfer the
rights of the public as well as of all
individuals in or over that land to any other
land specified in the declaration, and
earmarked for that purpose, in a provisional
consolidation scheme. The Coordinate
bench
also
considered
Section
19
subsection (3) after its amendment which
permitted Assistant Consolidation Officer
to allot, after determining its valuation, any
portion of agricultural wasteland or any
other land vested in the Gaon Sabha or any
other local authority or any land used for
public purpose to any tenure holder so as to
form part of his holding. Where any land
vested in the Gaon Sabha or the local
authority is allotted to a tenure holder under
sub section (5) of section 19, it shall be
deemed to have been resumed by the State
Government under the provisions of section
117 for which compensation shall be paid
by the State Government to the Gaon Sabha
or the local authority as the case maybe,
and it shall be settled with the tenure
holders to whom it has been allotted by the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
on
payment of compensation for development
if any carried out by the Gaon Sabha on it
earlier. The Assistant Consolidation Officer
is required only to make a note that it is
necessary to amalgamate the land used for
public purpose with any holding of a
private person. He has only to make a
declaration to that effect stating that it is
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
proposed to transfer the rights of the public
as well as of all individuals in or over that
land to any other land earmarked for the
public purpose, in the statement of
proposals, and whenever the rights are so
transferred they shall stand extinguished
from the land from which they are
transferred and be created in the land to
which they are transferred.

19. The learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
placed
reliance
upon
paragraph 11 & 12 of the judgement in
Ram Kumar (supra). The relevant extract of
para 11 is being quoted here in below: -

"Section 19 A also gives an idea that
the land belonging to Gaon Sabha or the
local authority can be allotted to a tenure
holder. There is no prohibition in the
allotment of land belonging to Gaon Sabha
to a tenure holder. .........The Assistant
Consolidation Officer has been fully
empowered to allot any land belonging to
the State Government or any other local
authority or the land belonging to Gaon
Sabha ....".

20. The relevant extract of paragraph
12 of the said judgement is being quoted
here in below: -

"Thus the counsel for the petitioners is
right in his submission that land belonging
to State Government /Gaon Sabha even if it
is for public purpose, can be allotted to a
tenure
holder
in
the
consolidation
proceedings and there is no lack of
jurisdiction in the consolidation authorities
in allotting the land for public purpose..."
The only precondition for exercise of power
given under section 19 A is that the
Assistant Consolidation Officer should
clearly write that it is proposed to transfer
the rights of the public as well as of all
individuals in and over that land, to any
other land specified in the declaration and
earmarked for that purpose, in the
provisional
consolidation
scheme.
........"Thus public purpose land belonging
to the Gaon Sabha cannot be allotted to a
tenure holder unless any other land is
specified in writing by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer. The intention of the
proviso is that public purpose be not
defeated and if a land is earmarked for
public purpose then it should not be
allotted to any tenure holder unless any
other land is specified to serve the public
purpose. For example, if any pasture land
is proposed to be allotted to tenure holder,
the same cannot be done unless any other
land is specified in writing to take the place
of the land sought to be allotted. The
proviso does not contemplate allotment
ofPublic purpose land to tenure holders
without there being any specification of any
other land in which the rights of the public
have to be adjusted. While allotting the
land of Gaon Sabha it has to be kept in
mind that the land of the Gram Sabhais
basically for public purpose, public in
general and society has interest in the
public land. Public land should not be
allotted only to serve individual interest,
protection of ponds, tanks, mountains have
been held to be necessary for environment
protection and pollution control. Thus the
Consolidation
Officer
allotting
Gaon
Sabha land should normally desist from
allotting ponds, tanks, mountains, land in
the nature of forest."

"......It has to be kept in mind that for
protecting the public property and the
interest of the public in general, the bodies
which were entrusted with the said duties
are often slack and not vigilant. The Gaon
Sabha which is expected to protect its
rights
for
the
public
in
general
occasionally abdicate their authority or
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
moves with self interest of persons
occupying the office."

21. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court has also perused
the order passed by the Consolidation
Officer and finds that the petitioner's
objections have been sufficiently dealt
with. In the order dated 11.10.2019 the
Consolidation Officer has observed that the
chaks of the petitioner had been shown on
the plots of land comprising his original
holding. The land of plot numbers 155 and
156 was not part of the original holding of
the petitioner, therefore, giving of Chak on
such land would amount to allotment of an
Udaan Chak to the petitioner. Moreover, it
would lead to the petitioner being given
three Chaks instead of two which was
inappropriate.

22. In the order passed by the
Settlement Officer Consolidtaion dated
16.11.2019
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation, has observed that he had
perused C.H. Form 23, the map of the
village
concerned
and
other
related
documents. The Consolidation Officer had
allotted two Chaks of land to the petitioner
but the petitioner wanted to surrender some
land in one Chak comprising of plot
number 8, and to be given allotment on plot
numbers 155 and 156 which was Bachat
land. The Settlement Officer Consolidation
went into the valuation of each of the
Chaks allotted to the petitioner and
compared it with the original valuation of
the plots of the petitioner and came to the
conclusion that the petitioner did not stand
to lose by the allotment finally made to him
as he had been given two Chaks on his
original plots of land. On the other hand, in
case the petitioner's claim was admitted it
would amount to allotting three Chaks
instead of two to the petitioner which was
not at all appropriate.

23.

The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Sitapur, while considering
the Revision filed by the petitioner also
took the same view as was taken by the
Consolidation Officer. He observed in the
order that the petitioner had already been
allotted two Chaks on plots comprising his
original holdings. Also the demand of third
Chak made by the Revisionist was
inappropriate because he was asking for
allotment of plot number 155 in 156, which
were not part of his original holding, and
would lead to three Chaks being allotted to
the revisionist instead of two and the third
Chak being an Udan Chak.

24. This Court also finds from a
perusal of Annexure 4 to the petition which
is a copy of C.H. form 23 (1), that the
petitioner had a share in as many as 13
plots of land at the start of consolidation
operations. Gata number 8 admeasuring
2.909 ha was one of the plots of original
holding of the petitioner whereas the total
holding of the petitioner adding up the
shares in 13 plots was 2.942 ha only. It
meant that the petitioner had only a
minuscule share in all the other 12 plots of
land that comprised his original holding.
The Land which was later on allotted to
him comprised of plot number 8 as his first
Chak, and his second Chak comprised of
parts of Gata numbers 138, 139 and 141.
The total land which was allotted to him
was 2.776 ha with a valuation of 85.06
paise comparable to the original valuation
of 88.61 Paise. The loss of less than three
Paise
in
valuation
was
more
than
compensated By allotment of two compact
Chaks instead of a minuscule share in the
other 12 plots.
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267

25. In Asbaran v DDC, 1986 RD 430;
this Court was considering an argument
raised by the petitioner that the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
while
considering the Revision, had by the
impugned order reduced the Chak of the
petitioner by more than 25% of the land
originally held by him. This according to
him, could not have been done by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation being
violative of provisions contained in the
proviso to section 19 1(b) of the Act. The
Court observed that in the process of
adjustment of Chaks made by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation while deciding
the Revisions and after hearing the parties,
he could allot chaks to the parties which he
may deem fit and proper on the facts of the
case, in exercise of power under section 48
of the Act. The reduction in the allotted
area to the extent of 28% from that of the
original holding appears to have occurred
on account of the fact that the petitioner
had been allotted better quality land of
exchange ratio of 12 Annas, as against the
land taken out from his Chak which was
valued at the exchange ratio of 8 to 10
Annas. Such allotment made by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation Could not be
held to be vitiated only on the ground that
no written permission had been taken from
the Director of Consolidation as envisaged
under the proviso to section 19 1(b) of the
Act.

26. The Court observed that Section
19 lays down the principles for guidance of
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
in
preparation of the provisional scheme
which
precedes
consolidation.
These
principles regulate the powers of the
Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is true
that each one of the sub sections contains
the qualifying words "as far as possible".
This phrase really means that the principles
are to be observed unless it is not possible
to
follow
them
in
the
particular
circumstances of a case. This qualification
was absolutely necessary in view of the fact
that
the
process
of
compulsory
consolidation is a very difficult and
complicated one. In the peculiar conditions
prevailing in the State, fragmentation of
holdings has through a process of centuries,
reached such a stage that there is no
straight road back towards consolidation.
What can be done in one village may not be
possible in another. In view of the fact that
consolidation is a pressing necessity, it was
necessary to add these qualifying words.
But that does not render the principles
enunciated in Section 19 ineffective or
illusory.

27. The Court in Asbaran (supra)
referred to its own decision in Sri Nath
versus Deputy Director of Consolidation
Sultanpur, 1986 AWC 248, that the
permission of the Director of Consolidation
as envisaged under the proviso to section
19 1(b) would be necessary if the
subordinate consolidation authorities would
make
allotment
of
a
Chak
having
difference of more than 25% without
obtaining prior permission. However where
the Director of Consolidation or the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, who exercises
delegated power of the Director of
Consolidation, has made allotment of such
a chak to a tenure holder having a different
of more than 25% in area, it would not be
invalid because the permission for such
allotment would be inherently manifest
therein. If the authority which is required to
give permission to an allotment of Chak
having difference in area by more than 25%
itself makes the allotment of such a Chak in
the
process
of
making
appropriate
adjustment in the Chaks of the parties,
while deciding a revision, it cannot be
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken to be invalid and without jurisdiction
and no interference would be called for by
this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.

28. An argument was raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation had
allotted an Udaan Chak to the petitioner
against the provisions of section 19. The
Court observed "it is nowhere provided in
Section 19 of the Act that a tenure holder
cannot be allotted a Chak having no part of
his original holding. The requirement
under section 19 1(b) of the Act is that the
tenure holder, as far as possible, be
allotted a compact area at a place where
he holds the largest part of his holding,
according to section 19 1(f) what a tenure
holder, as far as possible, is to be allotted
is a 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 plot originally held
by him there. This provision contained in
Section
19
1(f)
enjoins
upon
the
consolidation authorities to allot a plot on
which exists the tenure holder's private
source
of
irrigation
or
any
other
improvement. Apart from it, no other
provisions of section 19 of the Act enjoin
upon the consolidation authorities to make
allotment of Chak to the tenure holder on
his original plot, and the consolidation
authorities in view of the provisions
contained in section 19 1(e) of the Act are
required to allot, as far as possible, a
compact area to the tenure holder at a
place where he holds his largest part of
holding. If while making allotment of a
Chak to the tenure holder the consolidation
officer finds it difficult to make allotment of
a Chak to him of a compact area at a place
where he held the largest part of his
holding, then, he has to assign reasons for
not doing so. If no good reasons are shown,
the allotment would certainly be held to be
irregular and cannot be sustained. The
aforesaid provisions contained in section
19 (1) of the Act, however cannot be
construed to make it imperative on the
consolidation authorities to allot chak of
compact
area
to
a
tenure
holder
imperatively including there in some plot of
his original holding. The requirement of
such provision, in my opinion is that the
tenure holder has to be allotted a Chak of
a compact area at a place where exists the
largest part of his holdings and not on the
plot of his largest part of holding. In
making allotment of Chaks equity amongst
various tenure holders has to be adjusted,
and as such, if it is not possible to include
some of the original Chak of the tenure
holder in the allotted chak, then the
allotment of Chaks cannot be said to be
invalid or without jurisdiction on the
ground that no plot of original holding of
the tenure holder has been included in his
Chak, although a chak of compact area has
been allotted at one place and in the
vicinity where the tenure holder holds the
largest part of his holding. The requirement
of allotting original plot of the holding to
the tenure holder in his Chak has been
mandated only in section 19 1(f), according
to which, if there is a private source of
irrigation or other improvement on the plot
in question, then it has got to be allotted to
the Chak of the tenure holder. The
allotment of chak in violation of the
provisions contained in section 19 1(f) will
certainly make the allotment illegal being
violative of specific provisions, but in my
opinion, an allotment of Udaan Chak
cannot be taken to be illegal and without
jurisdiction, if such a chak has been
allotted at a place quite near to original
land held by the tenure holder in its
vicinity, and not excessively exceeding the
valuation of his original plots in that
6 All. Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
269
sector. It can only be said to be irregular in
those cases where the tenure holder is not
allotted chak at a place in the vicinity of the
original
land
held
by
him
in
the
sector/area, but the allotment of Udan
Chak to a tenure holder at a place quite
near to his original plot of holding cannot
be said to be invalid merely on the ground
that being Udaan chak it could not be
legally allotted. I find that there exists no
legal bar to the allotment of Udan Chak or
prohibiting allotment of such a Chak .....".

29. A consideration of this Court's
observation in Asbaran (supra) and Srinath
(supra) makes it amply clear that the
provision of Section 19 are not to be lightly
ignored.
However,
Section
19
only
provides two conditions which have to be
mandatorily followed. One relates to
allotment to a tenure holder of chak upon
the land to which he has already made
some improvements, the second requires
the authorities to allot to a tenure holdder
chak over the largest part of his holding.