High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
1. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) was decided vide order dated 13.09.1990 on the basis of Compromise entered into between Shukhdevi, Vidya Devi, Goverdhan, Sovardhan and Satya Narayan. Against the said order dated 13.09.1990 appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner no. 1-Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Satya Narayan along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 24 years before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In the aforementioned appeal objection was filed by private contesting respondents with the prayer that appeal should be dismissed on the ground of limitation as there is delay of 25 years in filing the appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 30.09.2015 allowed the appeal after granting benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act setting aside the order dated 13.09.1990 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Against the appellate order dated 30.09.2015 a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by private respondent nos. 5 and 6, which was registered as Revision No. 1379 of 2015. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.02.2025 allowed the revision in part setting aside the appellate order dated 30.09.2015 and remitted the matter back before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation Officer Varanasi in Revision No. 371/1379 of 2015 Computer No. 2015531470000041 u/s 48(1) of UPCH Act (Sita Ram Vs. Shanti Devi). b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation Officer Varanasi in Revision No. 371/1379 of 2015 Computer No. 2015531470000041 u/s 48(1) of UPCH Act (Sita Ram Vs. Shanti Devi). c) award the costs of the petition to the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an objection under Section 9A- 2 of the U.P.C.H. Act was decided on the basis of fraudulent compromise, as such time barred appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners was allowed, setting aside the compromise order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as remitted the matter back for afresh adjudication of title dispute in accordance with law. He further submitted that revision filed by private respondent has been illegally allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the appellate order and remitting the matter back again before appellate Court, which is an abuse of process of law. He submitted that petitioners have properly explained the delay in filing the appeal stating that name of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 was continuing in revenue records, as such petitioners were not aware about the orders passed on the basis of fraudulent compromise. He further submitted that order passed by appellate Court was in accordance with law, as such no interference was required in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He submitted that impugned revisional order should be set aside and order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal should be affirmed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal, as such revisional jurisdiction has rightly been exercised by Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision with direction to decide the appeal afresh considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner. He further submitted that compromise has taken place before Assistant Consolidation Officer between Sukhdevi along with others and Satya Narayan, but Satya Narayan has not taken any steps in his life time, as such appeal filed by petitioners after death of Satya Narayan cannot be entertained. He next submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act has been decided by respondent no. 3-Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise entered into between Sukhdevi along with others and Satya Narayan. There is also no dispute about the facts that the appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 24 years and appellate Court has granted benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, set aside the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title proceeding on merit. There is also no dispute about the facts that the Deputy Director Consolidation has allowed the revision filed by private respondents setting aside the order of the appellate Court and remitted the matter back before the appellate Court to decide the appeal considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner again.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision and remitting the matter back before the appellate Court will be relevant, which are as under:- . आददश पतक नययययलय: उप ससचयलक चकबनदद मणडल, वयरयणसद, जनपद: वयद ससखयय: 1379/2015 कस पययटटदकक त वयद ससखयय :-2015531470000041 सदतयरयम वयसक बनयम शयनतद ददवद असतररत धयरय:- 48(1), अधधननयम: उ०प० जजत चकबनदद अधधननयम, 1953 उभय पक कद नवदयन अधधवकय कद तकरस कज ससननद व पतयवलद कद अवलजकन सद सपष हह नक पसतसत पकरण मम बहनयमय नदनयसक 13-05-1988 जज सतय नरययन उरर भसलन नमश पसत लयल बहयदसर नमश नद नववयनदत आरयजद कद बयवतत ससखददई पतनद रयमनयथ पयल व नवदय ददवद पतनद सदतयरयम पयल व रजवधरन, सजवधरन पसतरण जररनयथ पयल कद हक मम ननषपयनदत नकयय हह, कद अससततव कज लदकर तथय इस समबनध मम सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद दयरय नकयद रयद समझझतद कद आधयर पर पयररत आददश कज अपदल कद मयधयम सद नवपकद दयरय पशनरत नकयय रयय थय। बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद नद अपनद ननणरय मम इस तथय पर कजई उपपधत नहह नदयय हह नक सतय नरययन कक मकतयस नदनयसक 26-02- 1990 कज हहआ यय नकस अनय नतधथ पर हहआ, कययनक बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद दयरय अपदलकतयर जज मझजयदय ननररयनद मम नवपकद हह, कद दयरय नदयद रयद सयकयय कज नवशवसनदय मयनतद हहए अपनद ननणरय कज आधयररत नकयय हह। इसकद अनतररक नमययद अधधननयम कक धयरय-5 कय लयभ पदयन नकयद जयनद हदतस बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद इस पर दयरय नदय रयद तकर कजई ननषकरर नहह नदयय हह। जबनक नकसद भद नययययलय कय समयधयन नवधध दयरय सथयनपत धसदयनतय कद अनसरप हजनय चयनहए तथय नकसद भद तथय कय ननषकरर समसनचत कयरणय पर आधयररत हजनय चयनहए। पसतसत मयमलद मम बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद नवलमब कमय करनद हदतस उनचत व तकर ससरत हह अथवय नहह, दयसरद कद पर अपदल मम दरय-5 नकनतस ननणरय कद पकष-4 कय वयकययसश धलखय हहआ हह। यद दजनय तकर एक- ननणरय कद पकष-3 पर यह उलदख नकयय रयय हह नक अपदलकतयर कय नमययद कद बयवतत नदयय रयय तकर दजरपयणर हह, कय लयभ ददनय उनचत पतदत हजतय हह, नवरजधयभयरद हह कययनक नकसद भद मयमलद यय कययरवयहद मम पककयर कज नमययद अधधननयम कक धयरय-5 कय लयभ तभद पदयन नकयय जयनय चयनहए, जब नययययलय कय यह समयधयन हज जयय नक अपदल दयधखल करनद मम कक रयद ददरद कद उपयसक कयरण नवदमयन हह तथय जज सपषदकरण समबसनधत वयनक नद नदयय हह, उसकद मयमलद कद पररससथनतयय कज ददखतद हहए उनचत व तकर ससरत हह। इस पकयर अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलद मम ननणरय कक एकरपतय नवदमयन नहह हह। ऐसद ससथनत मम बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद ननणरय कज पसष नकयय जयनय नयययजनचत नहह हह। रलतत ननररयनदकतयर कक ननररयनद आस नशक रप सद सवदकयर करतद हहए बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद सतर पर पसनत अपदल कज, पकय दयरय उठययद रयद तकरस व तथयय कद बयवतत कक रयद धजजयसयओस कज शयनत करतद हहए सससपष ननणरय करनद हदतस पतयवलद पतययवनतरत नकयय जयनय हद उनचत व नयययससरत हह। आददश ननरसत नकयय जयतय हह। पतयवलद बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद, उपरजक नववदचनय कद आधयर पर ननररयनद सदतयरयम नदनयसनकत 30-10-2015 आस नशक रप सद सवदकयर करतद हहए बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कय आददश नदनयसक 30-09- 2015 वयरयणसद कज इस ननदरश कद सयथ पतययवनतरत कक जयतद हह नक दजनय पकय दयरय नदयद रयद तकर स व. तथयय कज परदनकत करतद हहए पचधलत नवधध कद अनससयर ननणरय पयररत करम। उभय पकत वयरयणसद कद नययययलय मम नदनयसक 11-03-2025 कज वनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद, उपससथत हय। आददश कक पनत कद सयथ अवर नययययलयय कक पतयवलद वयपस हज। ननररयनद पतयवलद बयद आवशयक कययरवयहद दयधखल दफतर हज। ह०अप० धन रयज ययदव) ( उप ससचयलक चकबनदद, वयरयणसद।
25.02.2025
8. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as quoted above while deciding the revision as well as the fact that there was inordinate delay of 24 years in filing the appeal by the petitioners there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi to decide the time barred appeal filed by petitioners in pursuance of the impugned revisional order dated 25.02.2025 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Neetu
1. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) was decided vide order dated 13.09.1990 on the basis of Compromise entered into between Shukhdevi, Vidya Devi, Goverdhan, Sovardhan and Satya Narayan. Against the said order dated 13.09.1990 appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner no. 1-Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Satya Narayan along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 24 years before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In the aforementioned appeal objection was filed by private contesting respondents with the prayer that appeal should be dismissed on the ground of limitation as there is delay of 25 years in filing the appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 30.09.2015 allowed the appeal after granting benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act setting aside the order dated 13.09.1990 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Against the appellate order dated 30.09.2015 a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by private respondent nos. 5 and 6, which was registered as Revision No. 1379 of 2015. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.02.2025 allowed the revision in part setting aside the appellate order dated 30.09.2015 and remitted the matter back before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation Officer Varanasi in Revision No. 371/1379 of 2015 Computer No. 2015531470000041 u/s 48(1) of UPCH Act (Sita Ram Vs. Shanti Devi). b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation Officer Varanasi in Revision No. 371/1379 of 2015 Computer No. 2015531470000041 u/s 48(1) of UPCH Act (Sita Ram Vs. Shanti Devi). c) award the costs of the petition to the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an objection under Section 9A- 2 of the U.P.C.H. Act was decided on the basis of fraudulent compromise, as such time barred appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners was allowed, setting aside the compromise order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as remitted the matter back for afresh adjudication of title dispute in accordance with law. He further submitted that revision filed by private respondent has been illegally allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the appellate order and remitting the matter back again before appellate Court, which is an abuse of process of law. He submitted that petitioners have properly explained the delay in filing the appeal stating that name of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 was continuing in revenue records, as such petitioners were not aware about the orders passed on the basis of fraudulent compromise. He further submitted that order passed by appellate Court was in accordance with law, as such no interference was required in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He submitted that impugned revisional order should be set aside and order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal should be affirmed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal, as such revisional jurisdiction has rightly been exercised by Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision with direction to decide the appeal afresh considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner. He further submitted that compromise has taken place before Assistant Consolidation Officer between Sukhdevi along with others and Satya Narayan, but Satya Narayan has not taken any steps in his life time, as such appeal filed by petitioners after death of Satya Narayan cannot be entertained. He next submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act has been decided by respondent no. 3-Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise entered into between Sukhdevi along with others and Satya Narayan. There is also no dispute about the facts that the appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 24 years and appellate Court has granted benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, set aside the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title proceeding on merit. There is also no dispute about the facts that the Deputy Director Consolidation has allowed the revision filed by private respondents setting aside the order of the appellate Court and remitted the matter back before the appellate Court to decide the appeal considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner again.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision and remitting the matter back before the appellate Court will be relevant, which are as under:- . आददश पतक नययययलय: उप ससचयलक चकबनदद मणडल, वयरयणसद, जनपद: वयद ससखयय: 1379/2015 कस पययटटदकक त वयद ससखयय :-2015531470000041 सदतयरयम वयसक बनयम शयनतद ददवद असतररत धयरय:- 48(1), अधधननयम: उ०प० जजत चकबनदद अधधननयम, 1953 उभय पक कद नवदयन अधधवकय कद तकरस कज ससननद व पतयवलद कद अवलजकन सद सपष हह नक पसतसत पकरण मम बहनयमय नदनयसक 13-05-1988 जज सतय नरययन उरर भसलन नमश पसत लयल बहयदसर नमश नद नववयनदत आरयजद कद बयवतत ससखददई पतनद रयमनयथ पयल व नवदय ददवद पतनद सदतयरयम पयल व रजवधरन, सजवधरन पसतरण जररनयथ पयल कद हक मम ननषपयनदत नकयय हह, कद अससततव कज लदकर तथय इस समबनध मम सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद दयरय नकयद रयद समझझतद कद आधयर पर पयररत आददश कज अपदल कद मयधयम सद नवपकद दयरय पशनरत नकयय रयय थय। बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद नद अपनद ननणरय मम इस तथय पर कजई उपपधत नहह नदयय हह नक सतय नरययन कक मकतयस नदनयसक 26-02- 1990 कज हहआ यय नकस अनय नतधथ पर हहआ, कययनक बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद दयरय अपदलकतयर जज मझजयदय ननररयनद मम नवपकद हह, कद दयरय नदयद रयद सयकयय कज नवशवसनदय मयनतद हहए अपनद ननणरय कज आधयररत नकयय हह। इसकद अनतररक नमययद अधधननयम कक धयरय-5 कय लयभ पदयन नकयद जयनद हदतस बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद इस पर दयरय नदय रयद तकर कजई ननषकरर नहह नदयय हह। जबनक नकसद भद नययययलय कय समयधयन नवधध दयरय सथयनपत धसदयनतय कद अनसरप हजनय चयनहए तथय नकसद भद तथय कय ननषकरर समसनचत कयरणय पर आधयररत हजनय चयनहए। पसतसत मयमलद मम बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद नवलमब कमय करनद हदतस उनचत व तकर ससरत हह अथवय नहह, दयसरद कद पर अपदल मम दरय-5 नकनतस ननणरय कद पकष-4 कय वयकययसश धलखय हहआ हह। यद दजनय तकर एक- ननणरय कद पकष-3 पर यह उलदख नकयय रयय हह नक अपदलकतयर कय नमययद कद बयवतत नदयय रयय तकर दजरपयणर हह, कय लयभ ददनय उनचत पतदत हजतय हह, नवरजधयभयरद हह कययनक नकसद भद मयमलद यय कययरवयहद मम पककयर कज नमययद अधधननयम कक धयरय-5 कय लयभ तभद पदयन नकयय जयनय चयनहए, जब नययययलय कय यह समयधयन हज जयय नक अपदल दयधखल करनद मम कक रयद ददरद कद उपयसक कयरण नवदमयन हह तथय जज सपषदकरण समबसनधत वयनक नद नदयय हह, उसकद मयमलद कद पररससथनतयय कज ददखतद हहए उनचत व तकर ससरत हह। इस पकयर अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलद मम ननणरय कक एकरपतय नवदमयन नहह हह। ऐसद ससथनत मम बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद ननणरय कज पसष नकयय जयनय नयययजनचत नहह हह। रलतत ननररयनदकतयर कक ननररयनद आस नशक रप सद सवदकयर करतद हहए बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद सतर पर पसनत अपदल कज, पकय दयरय उठययद रयद तकरस व तथयय कद बयवतत कक रयद धजजयसयओस कज शयनत करतद हहए सससपष ननणरय करनद हदतस पतयवलद पतययवनतरत नकयय जयनय हद उनचत व नयययससरत हह। आददश ननरसत नकयय जयतय हह। पतयवलद बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद, उपरजक नववदचनय कद आधयर पर ननररयनद सदतयरयम नदनयसनकत 30-10-2015 आस नशक रप सद सवदकयर करतद हहए बनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कय आददश नदनयसक 30-09- 2015 वयरयणसद कज इस ननदरश कद सयथ पतययवनतरत कक जयतद हह नक दजनय पकय दयरय नदयद रयद तकर स व. तथयय कज परदनकत करतद हहए पचधलत नवधध कद अनससयर ननणरय पयररत करम। उभय पकत वयरयणसद कद नययययलय मम नदनयसक 11-03-2025 कज वनदजबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद, उपससथत हय। आददश कक पनत कद सयथ अवर नययययलयय कक पतयवलद वयपस हज। ननररयनद पतयवलद बयद आवशयक कययरवयहद दयधखल दफतर हज। ह०अप० धन रयज ययदव) ( उप ससचयलक चकबनदद, वयरयणसद।
25.02.2025
8. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as quoted above while deciding the revision as well as the fact that there was inordinate delay of 24 years in filing the appeal by the petitioners there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi to decide the time barred appeal filed by petitioners in pursuance of the impugned revisional order dated 25.02.2025 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Neetu