Allahabad High Court

BHOOP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The court held that the slight adjustment of the petitioner’s chak did not cause any material prejudice and therefore the order was not liable to be set aside.

Summary

Petitioner Bhoop Singh challenged an order dated 28‑Oct‑2025 issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, alleging that his original single chak comprising plots 227 and 229 was altered without considering his objection, causing prejudice. The petitioner's original holdings included several plots, and the revisionist order adjusted the chak by removing a valuation of Rs.13.83 paisa from plot 227 and allocating equivalent valuation to contiguous plots 228 and 229. The court examined the CH Form‑23 and the amended chart and found that the petitioner still retained a single chak covering plots 227, 228 and 229, with only a minor shift in composition. No evidence of material prejudice or loss was demonstrated by the petitioner. Consequently, the court concluded that the adjustment did not affect the petitioner's rights and there was no ground for interference. The writ petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the modification of the petitioner's chak under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, without considering his objection, caused any material prejudice.
Whether the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — s. 20

Subjects

consolidation of holdings
chak
land allotment
prejudice
revision
writ petition
Section 20

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 5088 of 2025

Bhoop Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohan Yadav, Shiv Badan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Achal Singh, C.S.C.

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Achal Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent
no.2, dated 28.10.2025 arising out of proceeding under Section 20 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of his
original holding a single chak was allotted to him on plot no.227M and
229M. The said allotment remain intact till the stage of Settlement Officer
Consolidation. However, in a revision filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6,
the chak allotted to the petitioner comprising his original holding in plot
nos. 227 and 229 has been modified. Submission is that the petitioner,
who is chak-holder plot no.175 has been affected by the order under
challenge, as the order under challenge has been passed without
considering the objection filed by him, before respondent no.2. It is also
submitted that for the benefit of contesting respondents, the chak allotted
to the petitioner on his original holding has been modified to his
disadvantage, therefore, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation
is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.

5. The CH Form-23 relating to petitioner, filed as Annexure-6, to the writ
WRIB No. 5088 of 2025
2

petition shows that the petitioner was original tenure holder of plot nos.
228, 229, 222, 224, 225, 226 and 227. By the order of the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, the revisionist has been accommodated by giving his
chak on his original holdings, however, valuation of Rs.13.83 paisa has
been taken out from the petitioner's alleged chak from plot no.227, in
respect of which, he has been given equal valuation in plot nos. 228 and
229, which are contiguous plots.

6. The aforesaid adjustment shows that the petitioner's single chak has
not been disturbed, he still possesses a single chak comprising of plot nos.
227, 228 and 229. Therefore, the perusal of amended chart alongwith CH
Form -23 Part-I shows that there is a slight shifting of the chak of
petitioner from his original possession, which has not materially affected
him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any prejudice
having been caused to the petitioner by the said modification in the
original chak allotted to him.

8. In view of the aforesaid and considering the adjustment made in the
chak of petitioner by the order of respondent no.2, dated 28.10.2026, no
prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as such, no interference is
warranted by this Court in the present petition.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 14, 2026
Ashok Kr.

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…