High Court

1. Heard Mr. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 156 and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are chak holder No. 154. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are co-sharers. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh (for short the ACO) proposed chak to the parties. Against the proposal of the ACO, an objection under Section 20 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the UPCH Act) was filed by the petitioner's father claiming chak on plot no. 7 as well as prayer has been made that the excess area given to him on 1st and 3rd chak should be decreased and should be adjusted on his original plot no. 7. The prayer has also been made that shape of second chak on plot no 37 should be modified to the effect that his chak may be adjusted in the eastern side in the place to northern-southern side. Private respondent/ Balkishun has also filed objection to the extent that double entry in respect of chak marg should be expunged. The Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District - Azamgarh (for short the CO) vide order dated 27.1.2006 allowed the objection of the petitioner and the objection of the private respondent was also allowed in part. Against the order of the CO dated 27.1.2006, petitioner as well as private respondent filed their separate appeals under Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which were numbered as Appeal No. 1178 and 1144. The aforementioned appeals were heard and disposed of by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (For short the ASOC) vide order dated 12.7.2006 reducing the chak out area of plot no. 37/2 from 218 ayer to 56 ayer in the eastern side of Abadi. Private respondent was given the northern side and the petitioner was given in the southern side of plot no. 37/2. Against the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the ASOC, the petitioner filed recall application no. 1142 which was allowed on 27.9.2006. The private respondent challenged the order dated 27.9.2006 passed in Appeal No. 1178 and 1144 by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revision was registered as Revision No. 7/2006. The petitioner filed an objection in the aforementioned revision filed by the private respondent. The Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh vide order dated 24.2.2009 dismissed revision no. 7/2006 filed by the private respondent. Against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh, private respondent filed Writ-B No. 18178 of 2009 before this High Court which was entertained on 15.4.2009. The aforementioned writ petition was heard finally and vide order dated 5.1.2022 revision was allowed setting side the revisional court's order dated 24.2.2009 as well as order dated 27.9.2006 and remanded the matter back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh (for short the DDC) to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment. In pursuance of the remand order dated 5.1.2022 passed by this Court, the matter was proceeded before the DDC and report dated 21.3.2024 was submitted ACO. The DDC after considering the report submitted by the ACO as well as after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the revision filed by the private respondent vide order dated 3.10.2024 and maintained the order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 3.10.2024 passed by respondent no 1 in Case No. 1206 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. 20225415600001206 - Balkishun Vs. Sudarshan and others) and order dated 12.7.2006 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Azamgarh in Appeal no. 1178 and 1144 under Section 21(2) of UPCH Act."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the DDC has decided the revision under the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that impugned order dated

3.10.2024 has been passed without considering the evidence on record. He further submitted that under the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 chak has not been adjusted between the parties in proper manner as provided under U.P.C.H. Act as such the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that under the impugned order, the revision filed by the private respondent / Balkishun has been dismissed and the order of the ASOC dated 12.7.2006 has been maintained, as such the petitioner/Sudarshan who was opposite party in the revision cannot challenge the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 passed under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act dismissing the revision filed by the private respondent. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that dispute relates to allotment of chak and the petitioner as well as private respondent are co-sharer. There is also no dispute about the fact that against the earlier order of the DDC dated 24.2.2009 and order of ACO dated 27.9.2006, Writ-B No. 18178 of 2009 was filed on behalf of private respondent / Balkishun which was allowed vide order dated 5.1.2022 setting aside the order dated 24.2.2009 and 27.9.2006 and the matter was remanded back before the DDC to decide the revision afresh.

7. In pursuance of the remand order dated 5.1.2022 passed by this Court, the ACO has submitted the site report before the DDC and the DDC accordingly decided the revision by which the revision filed by the private respondent / Balkishun has been dismissed and order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006 was maintained. Relevant portion of the order passed by the DDC dated 3.10.2024 is quoted as under: "आददेश पत्रक न्ययाययालययः उप ससंचयालक चकबन्दद मण्डलयः आजमगढ, जनपदयः आजमगढ, तहसदलयः सदर वयाद ससंख्ययायः 1206/2022 कसं प्ययटरदकक त वयाद ससंख्ययायः- 20225415600001206 बयालककशशुन बनयाम सशुदशरन आकद असंतगरत धयारयायः- 48(1), अधधकनयमयः- उ०प्र० जजोत चकबन्दद अधधकनयम, 1953 कनररय उभय पक्ष कवदयान अधधवकयाओसं दयारया प्रस्तशुत तकर सं एवसं कथननों कदे आलजोक मम पत्रयावलद एवसं पत्रयावलद मम ससंलग सयाक्ष्यनों कजो गहनतया सदे अनशुशदलन ककयया गयया। अनशुशदलन सदे स्पष्ट हजोतया हहै कक न्ययाययालय बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद ककी अपदल ससंख्यया 1178 बयालककशशुन आकद बनयाम सशुदशरन आकद व अपदल ससंख्यया 1144 गजोरख आकद बनयाम बयालककशशुन आकद अन्तगरत धयारया 21(2), तया०फहै ० 12.07.2006 दयारया ककयदे गयदे ससंशजोधन मम चकदयार ससंख्यया 156 कजो गयाटया ससंख्यया 37 मम जयाकनब दकक्षर तरफ व चकदयार ससंख्यया 154 कजो जयाकनब उत्तर तरफ तथया इन दजोननों कदे बदच पयरब-पशशचम ककी लम्बयान मम नयालद प्रकदष्ट ककयया गयया थया तथया पशुनयः तजवदजसयानद प्रयाथरनया पत्र पर न्ययाययालय ब०अ०च० दयारया कदनयासंक 27.09.2006 कजो आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 कदे मयल आददेश मम कजोई पररवतरन न करतदे हहए मयात्र ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया दयारया चक ससंख्यया 156, 154, 2, 286, 312, 164 ब तथया नयालद कजो इस आशय सदे ससंशजोधधत ककयया गयया हहै कक आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 कदे ससंशजोधन मम चकदयारनों ककी कदशया बदल दद गयद हहै , धजसकजो दशुरूस्त करनदे हदेतशु यह ससंशजोधन ककयया गयया हहै। कनगरयानद ससंख्यया 07 धयारया 48 बयालककशशुन आकद बनयाम सशुदशरन आकद तया०फहै ० 24.02.2009 कदे दयारया न्ययाययालय दयारया बयालककशशुन आकद ककी कनगरयानद इस आधयार पर कनरस्त कर दद गयद हहै कक अवर न्ययाययालय दयारया आददेश कदनयासंक 27.09.2006 मम न तजो चकनों ककी कदशया मम कजोई पररवतरन ककयया गयया हहै और न हद चकआउट रकबदे कजो कम यया अधधक ककयया गयया हहै तथया जजो रकबया चकआउट ककयया गयया हहै। वह भद उभय पक्षनों कया हद हहै तथया आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 ककी मयल भयावनया मम कजोई ससंशजोधन नहहीं हहआ हहै। गलत ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया बननदे कदे कयारर उसकजो कनरस्त करकदे दयसरद ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया अवर न्ययाययालय दयारया बनयायद गयद हहै तथया न्ययाययालय कया भद यह दयाकयत्व हहै कक मयल आददेश कदे अनशुरूप यकद ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया नहहीं बनद हहै , तजो उसकजो वह स्वतयः दशुरूस्त कर सकतया हहै। ऐसद शस्थकत मम अवर न्ययाययालय दयारया जजो ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया बनयायद गयद हहै , जजो ममौकदे कदे अनशुरूप तथ्य परक एवसं मयल आददेश कदे अनशुरूप हहै। इस आददेश मम ककसद प्रकयार कदे हस्तक्षदेप ककी आवशयकतया नहहीं प्रतदत हजोतद हहै। चय संकक मया० उच्च न्ययाययालय दयारया उप ससंचयालक चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 24.09.2009 व न्ययाययालय सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 27.09.2006 कजो कनरस्त कर कदयया गयया हहै। सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 ममौकदे कदे अनशुरूप हहै। इसधलए सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 कजो बहयाल रखनया उकचत प्रतदत हजोतया हहै। इस आददेश सदे दजोननों पक्ष अपनदे अपनदे आवयास कदे समक्ष शस्थत इन नम्बरजो पर समयान रूप सदे सयामनदे सयामनदे अपनया रकबया पयातदे हहै। इस प्रकयार कनगरयानद बल हदन हहै कनरस्त ककयदे जयानदे यजोग्य हहै। आददेश उपरजोक कववदेचनया कदे आधयार पर कनगरयानद कतयार ककी कनगरयानद बलहदन हजोनदे कदे कयारर कनरस्त ककी जयातद हहै तथया न्ययाययालय सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कया आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 पयवरवतत् बहयाल ककयया जयातया हहै। पत्रयावलद बयाद आवशयक कयायरवयाहद ससंकचत अकभलदेखयागयार हहै। कदनयासंक 3/10 ह० अपठनदय (कवनय कशु मयार गशुपया) उप ससंचयालक चकबन्दद, आजमगढ।"

8. Perusal of the order as quoted above demonstrate that the allotment name vide order dated 12.7.2006 to petitioner as well as private respondent has been found proper as both parties have been adjusted/allotted chak according to their share accordingly the order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006 has been maintained which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by the consolidation authorities.

9. The allotment of chak proceeding is going for the last 20 years between petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4 who are co-sharer of the plot in question as such the same should be decided finally by maintaining the appellate stage of chak allotment by which both parties have been adjusted according to their share in the plots as far as possible.

10. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the DDC, there is no scope of further interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order impugned passed by the DDC by which the revision filed by the private respondent has been dismissed and order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006 has been maintained in the allotment of chak proceeding.

11. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 S.K.S.

1. Heard Mr. Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 156 and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are chak holder No. 154. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are co-sharers. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh (for short the ACO) proposed chak to the parties. Against the proposal of the ACO, an objection under Section 20 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the UPCH Act) was filed by the petitioner's father claiming chak on plot no. 7 as well as prayer has been made that the excess area given to him on 1st and 3rd chak should be decreased and should be adjusted on his original plot no. 7. The prayer has also been made that shape of second chak on plot no 37 should be modified to the effect that his chak may be adjusted in the eastern side in the place to northern-southern side. Private respondent/ Balkishun has also filed objection to the extent that double entry in respect of chak marg should be expunged. The Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District - Azamgarh (for short the CO) vide order dated 27.1.2006 allowed the objection of the petitioner and the objection of the private respondent was also allowed in part. Against the order of the CO dated 27.1.2006, petitioner as well as private respondent filed their separate appeals under Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which were numbered as Appeal No. 1178 and 1144. The aforementioned appeals were heard and disposed of by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (For short the ASOC) vide order dated 12.7.2006 reducing the chak out area of plot no. 37/2 from 218 ayer to 56 ayer in the eastern side of Abadi. Private respondent was given the northern side and the petitioner was given in the southern side of plot no. 37/2. Against the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the ASOC, the petitioner filed recall application no. 1142 which was allowed on 27.9.2006. The private respondent challenged the order dated 27.9.2006 passed in Appeal No. 1178 and 1144 by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revision was registered as Revision No. 7/2006. The petitioner filed an objection in the aforementioned revision filed by the private respondent. The Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh vide order dated 24.2.2009 dismissed revision no. 7/2006 filed by the private respondent. Against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh, private respondent filed Writ-B No. 18178 of 2009 before this High Court which was entertained on 15.4.2009. The aforementioned writ petition was heard finally and vide order dated 5.1.2022 revision was allowed setting side the revisional court's order dated 24.2.2009 as well as order dated 27.9.2006 and remanded the matter back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh (for short the DDC) to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment. In pursuance of the remand order dated 5.1.2022 passed by this Court, the matter was proceeded before the DDC and report dated 21.3.2024 was submitted ACO. The DDC after considering the report submitted by the ACO as well as after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the revision filed by the private respondent vide order dated 3.10.2024 and maintained the order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 3.10.2024 passed by respondent no 1 in Case No. 1206 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. 20225415600001206 - Balkishun Vs. Sudarshan and others) and order dated 12.7.2006 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Azamgarh in Appeal no. 1178 and 1144 under Section 21(2) of UPCH Act."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the DDC has decided the revision under the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that impugned order dated

3.10.2024 has been passed without considering the evidence on record. He further submitted that under the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 chak has not been adjusted between the parties in proper manner as provided under U.P.C.H. Act as such the impugned revisional order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that under the impugned order, the revision filed by the private respondent / Balkishun has been dismissed and the order of the ASOC dated 12.7.2006 has been maintained, as such the petitioner/Sudarshan who was opposite party in the revision cannot challenge the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 passed under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act dismissing the revision filed by the private respondent. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that dispute relates to allotment of chak and the petitioner as well as private respondent are co-sharer. There is also no dispute about the fact that against the earlier order of the DDC dated 24.2.2009 and order of ACO dated 27.9.2006, Writ-B No. 18178 of 2009 was filed on behalf of private respondent / Balkishun which was allowed vide order dated 5.1.2022 setting aside the order dated 24.2.2009 and 27.9.2006 and the matter was remanded back before the DDC to decide the revision afresh.

7. In pursuance of the remand order dated 5.1.2022 passed by this Court, the ACO has submitted the site report before the DDC and the DDC accordingly decided the revision by which the revision filed by the private respondent / Balkishun has been dismissed and order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006 was maintained. Relevant portion of the order passed by the DDC dated 3.10.2024 is quoted as under: "आददेश पत्रक न्ययाययालययः उप ससंचयालक चकबन्दद मण्डलयः आजमगढ, जनपदयः आजमगढ, तहसदलयः सदर वयाद ससंख्ययायः 1206/2022 कसं प्ययटरदकक त वयाद ससंख्ययायः- 20225415600001206 बयालककशशुन बनयाम सशुदशरन आकद असंतगरत धयारयायः- 48(1), अधधकनयमयः- उ०प्र० जजोत चकबन्दद अधधकनयम, 1953 कनररय उभय पक्ष कवदयान अधधवकयाओसं दयारया प्रस्तशुत तकर सं एवसं कथननों कदे आलजोक मम पत्रयावलद एवसं पत्रयावलद मम ससंलग सयाक्ष्यनों कजो गहनतया सदे अनशुशदलन ककयया गयया। अनशुशदलन सदे स्पष्ट हजोतया हहै कक न्ययाययालय बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद ककी अपदल ससंख्यया 1178 बयालककशशुन आकद बनयाम सशुदशरन आकद व अपदल ससंख्यया 1144 गजोरख आकद बनयाम बयालककशशुन आकद अन्तगरत धयारया 21(2), तया०फहै ० 12.07.2006 दयारया ककयदे गयदे ससंशजोधन मम चकदयार ससंख्यया 156 कजो गयाटया ससंख्यया 37 मम जयाकनब दकक्षर तरफ व चकदयार ससंख्यया 154 कजो जयाकनब उत्तर तरफ तथया इन दजोननों कदे बदच पयरब-पशशचम ककी लम्बयान मम नयालद प्रकदष्ट ककयया गयया थया तथया पशुनयः तजवदजसयानद प्रयाथरनया पत्र पर न्ययाययालय ब०अ०च० दयारया कदनयासंक 27.09.2006 कजो आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 कदे मयल आददेश मम कजोई पररवतरन न करतदे हहए मयात्र ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया दयारया चक ससंख्यया 156, 154, 2, 286, 312, 164 ब तथया नयालद कजो इस आशय सदे ससंशजोधधत ककयया गयया हहै कक आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 कदे ससंशजोधन मम चकदयारनों ककी कदशया बदल दद गयद हहै , धजसकजो दशुरूस्त करनदे हदेतशु यह ससंशजोधन ककयया गयया हहै। कनगरयानद ससंख्यया 07 धयारया 48 बयालककशशुन आकद बनयाम सशुदशरन आकद तया०फहै ० 24.02.2009 कदे दयारया न्ययाययालय दयारया बयालककशशुन आकद ककी कनगरयानद इस आधयार पर कनरस्त कर दद गयद हहै कक अवर न्ययाययालय दयारया आददेश कदनयासंक 27.09.2006 मम न तजो चकनों ककी कदशया मम कजोई पररवतरन ककयया गयया हहै और न हद चकआउट रकबदे कजो कम यया अधधक ककयया गयया हहै तथया जजो रकबया चकआउट ककयया गयया हहै। वह भद उभय पक्षनों कया हद हहै तथया आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 ककी मयल भयावनया मम कजोई ससंशजोधन नहहीं हहआ हहै। गलत ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया बननदे कदे कयारर उसकजो कनरस्त करकदे दयसरद ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया अवर न्ययाययालय दयारया बनयायद गयद हहै तथया न्ययाययालय कया भद यह दयाकयत्व हहै कक मयल आददेश कदे अनशुरूप यकद ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया नहहीं बनद हहै , तजो उसकजो वह स्वतयः दशुरूस्त कर सकतया हहै। ऐसद शस्थकत मम अवर न्ययाययालय दयारया जजो ससंशजोधन तयाधलकया बनयायद गयद हहै , जजो ममौकदे कदे अनशुरूप तथ्य परक एवसं मयल आददेश कदे अनशुरूप हहै। इस आददेश मम ककसद प्रकयार कदे हस्तक्षदेप ककी आवशयकतया नहहीं प्रतदत हजोतद हहै। चय संकक मया० उच्च न्ययाययालय दयारया उप ससंचयालक चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 24.09.2009 व न्ययाययालय सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 27.09.2006 कजो कनरस्त कर कदयया गयया हहै। सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 ममौकदे कदे अनशुरूप हहै। इसधलए सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कदे आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 कजो बहयाल रखनया उकचत प्रतदत हजोतया हहै। इस आददेश सदे दजोननों पक्ष अपनदे अपनदे आवयास कदे समक्ष शस्थत इन नम्बरजो पर समयान रूप सदे सयामनदे सयामनदे अपनया रकबया पयातदे हहै। इस प्रकयार कनगरयानद बल हदन हहै कनरस्त ककयदे जयानदे यजोग्य हहै। आददेश उपरजोक कववदेचनया कदे आधयार पर कनगरयानद कतयार ककी कनगरयानद बलहदन हजोनदे कदे कयारर कनरस्त ककी जयातद हहै तथया न्ययाययालय सहयायक बन्दजोबस्त अधधकयारद चकबन्दद कया आददेश कदनयासंक 12.07.2006 पयवरवतत् बहयाल ककयया जयातया हहै। पत्रयावलद बयाद आवशयक कयायरवयाहद ससंकचत अकभलदेखयागयार हहै। कदनयासंक 3/10 ह० अपठनदय (कवनय कशु मयार गशुपया) उप ससंचयालक चकबन्दद, आजमगढ।"

8. Perusal of the order as quoted above demonstrate that the allotment name vide order dated 12.7.2006 to petitioner as well as private respondent has been found proper as both parties have been adjusted/allotted chak according to their share accordingly the order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006 has been maintained which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by the consolidation authorities.

9. The allotment of chak proceeding is going for the last 20 years between petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4 who are co-sharer of the plot in question as such the same should be decided finally by maintaining the appellate stage of chak allotment by which both parties have been adjusted according to their share in the plots as far as possible.

10. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the DDC, there is no scope of further interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order impugned passed by the DDC by which the revision filed by the private respondent has been dismissed and order of ASOC dated 12.7.2006 has been maintained in the allotment of chak proceeding.

11. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 S.K.S.