JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri Tauqueer Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "DDC"), Unnao in Revision No. 558 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 202254106900001621 (Laxman v. Rajnu and others) filed under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "SOC") in Appeal No. 419, Computerized Case No. 202254106900001525 (Laxman Prasad v. Rajnu and Others) filed under Section 21(2) Act of 1953, whereby the appeal was partly allowed and also the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer Bangarmau District Unnao in Case No. 103-21/22 (Laxman Prasad and Others v. State of U.P.) under Section 21(1) Act of 1953, by which the objection filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. While assailing the impugned order(s) dated 29.08.2022, 18.10.2022, 24.07.2023, respectively, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same are in violation of principles envisaged under Section 19 of Act of 1953. 4. It is also stated that the impugned order(s) passed by respondent nos. 1,2 and 3, are arbitrary and illegal and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well material available on record. The authorities under the Act of 1953 while passing impugned orders did not consider that the first Chak of the petitioner should be made on the Gata No. 166 area 1.25 at the West side including the boring and second Chak Gata No. 79 area 0.708 as per 1/2 share ¼vkB vkuk½ of the petitioner over these Gatas and the Udan Chak should be removed. He also stated that no spot inspection was made by SOC concerned. It is also stated that ignoring the principles related to allotment of chak(s), the DDC also dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by SOC dated 18.10.2022, whereby the SOC partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and by virtue of the impugned orders, the petitioner would be deprived of his right. Moreover, the source of irrigation of the petitioner has also been ignored while passing the orders. 5. Moreover, the source of irrigation of the petitioner has also been ignored while passing the orders. 5. On the other hand, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State stated that the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with by this Court, as two chaks to the petitioner have been provided on his 'Mool' gatas as per principles envisaged under Section 19 of the Act of 1953 including after taking note of valuation. 6. Further submission is that Section 19 of the Act of 1953 says that chak should be allotted to the tenure holder at a place where he holds largest part of his holding. It is also stated that maximum three chaks can be allotted by the Consolidation Authorities and with the approval of DDC, four chaks can be allotted. In the instant case, the petitioner has been given two chaks over his 'Mool' gatas, which is permissible under law. As such, no interference is required in the matter. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This case relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, it would be useful to refer some judgments of this Court on the issue involved and the relevant provisions of the Act of 1953. 9. Section- 19(1)(e) of the Act of 1953 is as follows:- "19. Conditions to be fulfilled by a Consolidation Scheme.-(1) A consolidation scheme shall fulfill the following conditions, namely, (a)...... (b)...... (c)...... (d)...... (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: Provided further that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three." 10. From reading of Section 19(1)(e) and considering the case of the parties, it is clear that consolidation Authorities can not pass arbitrary order. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements. 11. It is no doubt correct that during chak allotment proceedings, the allotment cannot be made in such a manner which may satisfy every tenure holder but the consolidation authorities are required follow the mandate of the Act/Rules, as explained by the judicial pronouncements. 11. In the context of this case, the following observations of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Asbaran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088, are relevant. "This provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to allot plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement. Apart from it, no other provisions of Section 19 of the Act enjoins upon the consolidation authorities to make allotment of chak to the tenure-holder on his original plot and the consolidation authorities in view of 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 place where he holds largest part of his holding. The word as far as possible occurring in Section 19(1)(e) of the Act cannot be construed so as to give an unfettered discretion to the consolidation authorities in not making an allotment of a chak of compact area at place where the tenure holder holds his largest part of holding. It while making allotment of a chak to the tenure holder the Consolidation Officer finds it difficult to make allotment of 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)(e) 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 be imperatively including therein some plot of his original holding. The requirement of said provision, in my opinion, is that the tenure holder has to be allotted a chak of a compact area at a place where he holds the largest part of his holding and not on the plot of his largest part of holding. The requirement of said provision, in my opinion, is that the tenure holder has to be allotted a chak of a compact area at a place where he holds the largest part of his holding and not on the plot of his largest part of holding. In making allotment of chaks equity amongst various tenure holders has got to be adjusted, and, as such, if it is not possible to include some of the original land of the tenure holder in the allotted chak; then the allotment of chak 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 a 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 exists private source of irrigation or other improvement on the plot in question, then it has got to be allotted in the chak of the tenure holder. The allotment of chak in violation of the provision contained in Section 19(1)(f) would certainly make allotment illegal being violative of specific provisions. But in my opinion, an allotment of a 'Uran' Chak cannot be taken to be illegal and without jurisdiction if such a chak has been allotted at a place quite near the original land held by the tenure holder in its vicinity and not excessively exceeding the valuation of his original plots in that sector." 12. In the above case, this Court held that in view of the provision of Section 19(1)(e) the consolidation authorities are required to allot as far as possible a compact area to the tenure holder at a place where he holds the largest part of the holding and the judgment also says that the aforesaid provision can be construed to make it imperative on the consolidation authorities to allot chak of compact area to a tenure holder including therein some plot of his original holding. 13. 13. In the judgment passed in the case of Mukut Nathi v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur; 1998 R.D. 148, this Court held in paragraph 5 as under:- "The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation have carved out the chak of the petitioner in such a way that its shape was rectangular and was leading up to the P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation for the first time carved out a chak in rectangular shape running from north to south, with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the land towards P.W.D. road. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any finding as to whether under the sale deed any specified portion was sold to the petitioner. In case the petitioner was sold a portion which did not lead up to P.W.D. road, the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be justified not to give such portion to the petitioner but if this portion was not specified or he was given a portion which leads up to the P.W.D. road, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation will not be valid and justified." 14. In respect to cases where the interference in the allotment of chaks is permissible under Article 226, the issue has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition (Cons.) No. 5001 of 1983 (Ram Udit v. D.D.C. & others) decided on 24.09.2014 and in para 29 to 32, this Court has said as under:- "29. It is not in dispute that the allotment of Chaks is to be made taking into consideration principles laid down under Section 19 of Act 1953. These principles have been considered by this Court in Bechan Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1985 AWC 604 All. In para 4 thereof, this Court has said that allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the principles, namely, (i) every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding (ii) the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to valuation of the plot originally held by him and (iii) every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The Court further held that the area held by tenture holder prior to start of consolidation proceedings, is relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder, varies by more than 25% or not, as contained in the first proviso of Section 19 of the Act, 1953. 30. In Dr. A.N. Srivastava v. DDC 1982 LLJ 42 Hon'ble K. N. Misra J. referring to Section 19(1)(e) of Act 1953 said: "The petitioners under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act were entitled to get a chak at a place where they had held largest part of their original holding. The words 'as for as possible' used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily ignoring the provisions contained therein. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while altering the chak of the petitioners should have assigned reasons for not making allotment to the petitioners on the aforesaid plots Nos. 1082 and 1087 which were admittedly largest part of their holding. In my opinion the words as far as possible used in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act require the provisions contained therein to be followed unless their compliance cannot be made for specific reasons to be assigned for it" (emphasis added) 31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others 1985 LLJ 330 and the Court further said: "In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act which lays down that every tenure-holder, as for as possible, should be allotted a Chak at a place where he held his largest holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in case it is not possible, then the reasons should have been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to the petitioners on their plot. The words "as far as possible" used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder." (emphasis added) 32. The words "as far as possible" used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder." (emphasis added) 32. In Doodh Nath v. DDC and others 1988 (6) LCD 453 the Court held, if a tenure holder has his Chak with private source of irrigation, allotment of chak must be weighed so as to keep intact private source of irrigation of such person. The Court said that there cannot be any legal justification for refusing to allot a Chak to a tenure holder at a particular place, where he had held his private source of irrigation on the ground that his sons or other relations may have been allotted a chak in its vicinity. Every tenure holder would be entitled to get allotment of chak at a place where he could be allotted chak, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The tenure holder would be entitled to get near village Abadi so much of land which he originally held at that place and also at the place of his private source of irrigation. The Court also said that undoubtedly, while deciding objection filed by a tenure holder against proposed allotment of chaks, equities are to be adjusted taking into consideration location of original land-holding of the other tenure holders whose chaks are likely to be affected while determining the objection. But while doing so, just and appropriate claim put forth by the tenure holder cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is a big tenure holder as compared to the opposite parties or that his son or some other relation has been allotted chak near the place where the objector claims an allotment of chak as against his original holding. The Court added a few words of caution for the consolidation authorities, in the following manner: "In the matter of allotment of chaks a care is to be taken by the authorities to allot chak to the tenure holders to which they are entitled as against their original holdings. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. Thus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to feel hesitant in interfering with the impugned orders which are found to be unwarranted in law and facts of the case, merely on the ground that the writ petition could not be taken up earlier for disposal. The impugned orders cannot be left to survive merely on the delay in disposal of the writ petition for no fault of the petitioner." (para-11) 15. In the light of the principles related to allotment of chak(s) as observed by this Court in the judgment(s), referred above, this Court considered the facts of the case. 16. This Court finds that the two chak(s) have been allotted to the petitioner over his 'Mool' gatas, as per his share, in terms of principles envisaged under Section 19 of the Act of 1953 including after considering the valuation of the land, which is evident from the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by SOC. 16. This Court finds that the two chak(s) have been allotted to the petitioner over his 'Mool' gatas, as per his share, in terms of principles envisaged under Section 19 of the Act of 1953 including after considering the valuation of the land, which is evident from the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by SOC. The relevant potion of the same reads as under:- ^^izLrqr vihy yf{keu izlkn iq= nsoh izlkn ds }kjk jtuw iq= jkeukFk vkfn dks i{kdkj cukrs gq;s pdcUnh vf/kdkjh cakxjeÅ mUuko ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k okn la[;k&103 vUrxZr /kkjk&21¼1½ rk0QS0&29-08-2022 ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 03-09-2022 dks ;ksftr dh x;h gSA vihyk.V dk dFku gS fd mlds ewy xkVk la[;k&79] 166] 174 o 180@3 gS] ftlesa mldk 1@2 va'k gSA ewy xkVk la[;k&79@0-708 gs0] 166@1-325 gs0] 174@0-176 gs0 o 180@3@0-080 gs0 gSA xkVk la[;k&79 o 166 esa vihyk.V dk dCtk if'pe rjQ jgk gSA blh esa oknh dh cksfjax gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd l0p0v0 us fgLls ls de xyr fn'kk esa pd cuk fn;k FkkA mDr izns'ku ds fo:) vihyk.V us voj U;k;ky; esa vkifRr izLrqr dh Fkh ftls pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk fujLr dj nh x;hA xkVk la[;k&166@1-325 gs0 esa 1@2 if'pe rjQ cksfjax ysrs gq, pd pkgrk gSA vihyk.V ds }kjk vihy esa vU; rF;ksa dks vadu djrs gq;s vUr esa ;kpu dh x;h gS fd voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29-08-2022 fujLr djrs gq;s mlds ewy xkVk la[;k&79 o 166 esa fgLls ds eqrkfcd cksfjax ysrs gq, if'pe rjQ pd izfn"V djrs gq;s vihy Lohdkj dh tk;sA mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk x;k rFkk xzke ds vfHkys[k ,oa pd Hkwfp= dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vihyk.V pdnkj la[;k&1306 yf{keu izlkn iq= nsoh izlkn ds uke ls dk;e gS] buds dqy 4 ewy xkVs gS] ftlds lkis{k voj U;k;ky; }kjk vihyk.V dks ckn dVkSrh izFke pd ewy xkVk la[;k&166 fe0 ij 45-85 ewY;kadu o f}rh; pd ewy xkVk la[;k&79fe0 vkfn ij 44-45 ewY;kadu dk pd izfn"V fd;k x;k gSA vihyk.V ;g pkgrk gS fd xkVk la[;k&79 o 166 esa if'pe rjQ rd cuk;k tk;sA vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k&166 {ks=Qy 1-325 gs0 esa 1@2 vFkkZr 0-662 gs0 curk gS] ftlds lkis{k mls ek= 0-519 gs0 dk pd izfn"V fd;k x;k gSA xkVk la[;k&166 ij vihyk.V dks va'k ls de izfn"V gksus ds dkj.k ml ij pd izfn"V fd;k tkuk mfpr gS fQj Hkh ;fn xkVk la[;k&166 ij 1@2 va'k fn;k tkrk gS rks mRrjoknh ds xkVk la[;k&79 ,d gh lsDVj esa nks pd cu tk;saxs tks mfpr ugha gSA blfy, xkVk la[;k&166 ij vihyk.V dh ekax vkaf'kd Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gksus ds dkj.k xkVk la[;k&166 esa 0-038 gs0 vkSj nsrs gq;s pd izfn"V fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA rnuqlkj vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vkns'k gqvk fd & vkns'k mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij yf{keu izlkn iq= nsoh izlkn ds }kjk izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA layXu pd la'kks/ku rkfydk ftl ij esjs lfnukad gLrk{kj gSA vkns'k dk vfHkUu vax gksxhA bl la'kks/ku ls pd la[;k&1306] 1145] 1047] 1048 o cpr dks izHkkfor fd;k tkrk gSA lEcfU/kr pdnkjksa dks tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&23 Hkkx&1 m)j.k tkjh gksA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQrj gksA** 17. Further, with regard to claim of boring, the petitioner could not substantiate his case before the authorities under the Act of 1953, by placing relevant material evidence on record, which is evident from the following observations made by the D.D.C. in the impugned order dated 24.07.2023. ^^i=koyh is'k gqbZA mHk; i{k e; vf/koDrk mifLFkr] ftUgsa lquk x;kA voj U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa o vfHkys[kksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd pdzokj la0 1306 yf{keu izlkn iq= nsoh izlkn fuoklh&glukiqj ds uke vafdr gSA buds dqy 03 xkVksa ds lkis{k 02 pd] izFke pd ewy xkVk la0&166 jdck 0-547 gs0 o f}rh; pd ewy xkVk la0&79 vkfn jdck 0-521 gs0 izfn"V fd;k x;k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lHkh pd mlds gh ewy uEcj ij o lgh cus gSaA vfHkys[k o Hkwfp= ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd cksfjax iSr`d gS tks ,d gh pd esa izfn"V fd;k tkuk laHko gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ o izfroknh la0&3 lxs HkkbZ gSaA voj U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fof/klaxr gS] ftlesa fdlh la'kks/ku dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dh ekax fujk/kkj gksus ds dkj.k fuxjkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 18. Before this Court also the petitioner has not placed any evidence/document based upon which it can be held that the claim of boring of the petitioner is sustainable. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the allotment of chak(s) to the petitioner is just and proper. Hence, no interference in the order(s) dated 29.08.2022, 18.10.2022 and 24.07.2023 is required by this Court in exercise of power vested under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.