JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 1/Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in the Revision No. 1316 of 2022 (Ram Manohar Vs. Sunil Dutt & Others); the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure No. 3 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda, in Appeal No. 162 and the order dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure No. to the petition) passed by opposite party no.3/Consolidation Officer, Naveen Gonda, in the proceedings instituted under U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). 3. Assailing the impugned orders dated 11.11.2022, 08.09.2022, as well as 08.01.2020, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court, as the same have been passed without considering the genuine grievance of the petitioners as also that the same are against the principles embodied under Section 19 of the Act of 1953. 4. At this stage, it would be apt to indicate the following facts, which are relevant for disposal of present petition. i) As per Form CH-2A annexed at page-33 of the present petition, the mool gata/original gata of the petitioner is Gata No. 522 situated at Village- Tikariya, Tehsil, Pargana and District - Gonda. ii) In Form CH-2A further indicates that a 'boring' was situated over this gata and age of the boring indicated in the same is about fifteen years. iii) In Form CH-2A the existence of 'Samadhi', etc. have not been indicated. (iv) Form CH-23 prepared during consolidation proceedings, annexed at page 29 of the present petition, indicates that a chak has been carved out after taking note of the original holding/mool gata of the petitioner i.e. 522. and another adjacent Gata i.e. 523M. and total area provided to the petitioner is 0.276 hectares having valuation of 19 rupees and 29 paisa. 4A. Per contra, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha stated that the Chak provided to the petitioners is just and proper and, in fact, they are not aggrieved by the orders impugned in any manner. 5. 4A. Per contra, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha stated that the Chak provided to the petitioners is just and proper and, in fact, they are not aggrieved by the orders impugned in any manner. 5. Subject matter of the present petition relates to allotment of chak(s), as such, before proceeding further, this Court is of the view that the judgments on this aspect be taken note of as the principles in respect to allotment of chak has already been settled by this Court in various pronouncements. 6. In the judgement passed in the case of Asbaran vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda; 1986 A.W.C. 1088 , this Court observed as under: "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 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. 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 toKhursheed 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." 7. But in my opinion, an allotment of a 'Uran' Chak cannot be taken toKhursheed 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." 7. 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. 8. In the judgment passed in the case of Mukut Nathi vs. 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." 9. 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 Vs. D.D.C. & others) decided on 24.09.2014 and in para 29 to 32, this Court has said as under:- "29. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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. 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" 31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal Vs. 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." 32. In Doodh Nath Vs. 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 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. 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) 10. The present petition challenging the impugned orders has been filed on two aspects i.e. (i) the chak has been carvvd out having six angles and (ii) the area of Gata No. 522 over which boring/tube-well and 'Samadhi' are situated has not been provided. 11. At this stage, it would be relevant to indicate that no ground was taken in the revision, based upon the boring situated over Gata no. 522M, decided by DDC vide impugned order dated 11.11.2022. 12. It is also relevant to indicate that Form CH-2A does not indicate that the 'Samadhi' were situated over gata in issue i.e. Gata no. 11. At this stage, it would be relevant to indicate that no ground was taken in the revision, based upon the boring situated over Gata no. 522M, decided by DDC vide impugned order dated 11.11.2022. 12. It is also relevant to indicate that Form CH-2A does not indicate that the 'Samadhi' were situated over gata in issue i.e. Gata no. 522 and the entries made in Form CH-2A are relevant for carving out the chak(s). 13. It is not in dispute that chak has been provided to the petitioner after taking note of his 'Mool Gata No. 522/0.287 hecatres' and the area allotted to the petitioner is 0.276 hectares. 14. The map annexed as Annexure No. 14, at page 37 of the petition, reflects that chak/plot allotted to the petitioner is neither hexagon ( nor irregular hexagon ( . In fact chak/plot provided to the petitioner is of rectilinear shape ( ). 15. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no force in the present petition and is, accordingly, dismissed . No order as to costs.