Aziz v. Rabiya and others, under Section

1. Heard Mr. Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Brijesh Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.6.1985 directed to record the name of Khursheed (father of petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4) on the basis of will deed dated 29.4.1984. The order dated 3.6.1985 has been ultimately set aside in appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.3 and matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh on merit. The appellate order was challenged in revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the revision and directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 31.12.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj, in Revision No. 1478 of 2023 (Computer case No. 202353054700000001478), Aziz Vs. Rabiya and others, under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as order dated 27.9.2021 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation Maharajganj in appeal No. 131/20-21 Smt. Rahma Vs. Khursheed and others under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953."

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that name of Khursheed was rightly ordered to be recorded on the basis of registered will deed dated 29.4.1984 executed by Tajammul in favour of Khursheed. He submitted that order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.6.1985 as well as order dated 21.7.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer has illegally been set aside in appeal by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the entire dispute afresh which is abuse of process of law. He submitted that revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed without considering the case as set up in revision. He further submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.6.1985 and order passed by Consolidation Officer 21.7.1988 should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B.P. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the entire dispute afresh on merit. He further submitted that finding of fact that been recorded by Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court while remitting the matter back before Consolidation Officer for adjudication of entire dispute on merit which requires no interference by this Court. He further submitted that the will deed alleged to be executed by Tajammul in favour of Khursheed cannot be relied upon as Tajammul has expired before execution of alleged will deed. He submitted that wife of Tajammul was alive, as such, there was no question of execution of will deed in favour of Khursheed who is nephew of Tajammul . He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed the order for recording the name of Khursheed on the basis of will deed dated 29.4.1984 but the order dated 3.6.1985 has been set aside in appeal and the matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant portion of the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation will be relevant which is as under:- " आददश पतक नययययलयय उप ससचयलक चकबनदद मणडलय गगरखपपर, जनपदय तहसदल। वयद ससखययय- 0001478/2023 कस पययटरदकक त वयद ससखययय- 202353054700000001478 अजदज बनयम रयबबयय सद यह सपष हह, मम यह अवधयररत बकयय हह, असतगरत धयरयय- 48(1), अधधबनयमय- बक तजममपल कक मकतयप बदनयसक 09.08.1984 उ०प० जगत चकबनदद अधधबनयम, 1953 अधगहसतयकरद दयरय उभय पकक कद बवदयन अधधवकयगण दयरय पसतपत धलधखत बहस कय अवलगकन व पररशदलन बकयय गयय। अवर नययययलय बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद पपतयवलद कय अवलगकन व पररशदलन बकयय। धजससद यह सपष हह, बक बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद नद आददश बदनयसक 27.09.2021 बक सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कग वसदयत कद आधयर पर आददश करनद कय कदतयधधकयर नहह हह। जबबक सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय पशनगत आरयजद पर वसदयत कद आधयर पर खपशरद कय नयम दजर करनद कय आददश पयररत बकयय गयय हह। एस०डद०ओ० बनचललल कद आददश बदनयसक 31.07.1996 कग हग चपकक थद। वसदयत बदनयसक 29.09.1984 कग धलखद गयद हह। मकतयप कद बयरद मम एस०डद०ओ० आददश बदनयसक 31.07.1996 अननतम आददश हह। इनहद सब पकरण कग परदकण करनद कद धलयद बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद दयरय सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय पयररत आददश बदनयसक 03.06.1985 एवस चकबनदद अधधकयरद दयरय पयररत आददश बदनयसक 21.07.1988 कग बनरसत करतद हहयद चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद यहयह गपण दगष पर बनणरय करनद हदतप पतययवबतरत बकयय गयय हह। बनगरयनदकतयर कय यह मयहग हह, बक बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कय आददश बनरसत करतद हहयद सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कय आददश बदनयसक 03.06 1985 बक सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कग वसदयत कद आधयर पर आददश पयररत करनद कय कदतयधधकयर नहद हह। कयकबक वसदयत दग सयकयक सद परदबकत हगनय चयबहयद। सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद दयरय कदतयधधकयर सद बयहर जयकर आददश पयररत बकयय हह। पशनगत आरयजद पर सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय आददश पयररत हगनद कद पशचयत चकबनदद अधधकयरद कग पशनगत आरयजद पर कगई आददश पयररत नहद करनय चयबहयद। चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय पयररत आददश बदनयसक 21.07.1988 अबवधधक हह। बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद नद सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद / चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद आददशक कग बनरसत करकद पतयवलद गपण दगष पर बनसतयरण हदतप चकबनदद जग बनरसत अधधकयरद कग पतययवबतरत बकयय हह, बकयद जयनद यगगय हह। बदसतयर बकयय जयय। बवचयरणदय बबनदप यह हह, जग बवधधक हह। पसतपत बनगरयनद बलहदन हह, आददश रक बनषकषर कद आधयर पर पसतपत बनगरयनद बलहदन हगनद कद कयरण बनरसत बकयय जयतय उपयप हह। पतयवलद बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद आददश बदनयसक 27.09.2021 कद आलगक मम पतयवलद चकबनदद अधधकयरद महरयजगसज कग इस बनदरश कद सयथ पतययवबतरत बकयय जयतय हह, बक उभय पकक कग सपनकर वयद कय बनसतयरण यथयशदघ करम। उभय पक चकबनदद अधधकयरद महरयजगसज कद नययययलय मम बदनयसक 17.01.2025 कग उपनसथत हग। अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलद आददश कक पमयबणत पबत कद सयथ वयपस कक जयय। इस नययययलय कक पतयवलद वयद आवशयक कययरवयहद दयधखल दफतर हग। बदनयसकय-31-12-24 आज यह आददश मदरद दयरय खपलद नययययलय मम हसतयकररत, ( डय० पसकज कप मयर वमयर) अपर धजलयधधकयरद/(बव०/रय०) उपससचयलक चकबनदद, महरयजगसज। बदनयसबकत एवस उदगबषत बकयय गयय। अपर धजलयधधकयरद/(बव०रय०) उपससचयलक चकबनदद, महरयजगसज।" 8. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Revisional Court fully demonstrate that matter requires adjudication of dispute on merit by Consolidation Officer after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities.

10. The writ petition is dismissed and respondent no.4, Consolidation Officer, District Maharajganj is directed to decide the dispute in pursuance of the appellate order dated 27.9.2021/ revisional order dated 31.12.2021 expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after framing issues and giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Vandana Y.

1. Heard Mr. Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Brijesh Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.6.1985 directed to record the name of Khursheed (father of petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4) on the basis of will deed dated 29.4.1984. The order dated 3.6.1985 has been ultimately set aside in appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.3 and matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh on merit. The appellate order was challenged in revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the revision and directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 31.12.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj, in Revision No. 1478 of 2023 (Computer case No. 202353054700000001478), Aziz Vs. Rabiya and others, under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as order dated 27.9.2021 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation Maharajganj in appeal No. 131/20-21 Smt. Rahma Vs. Khursheed and others under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953."

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that name of Khursheed was rightly ordered to be recorded on the basis of registered will deed dated 29.4.1984 executed by Tajammul in favour of Khursheed. He submitted that order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.6.1985 as well as order dated 21.7.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer has illegally been set aside in appeal by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the entire dispute afresh which is abuse of process of law. He submitted that revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed without considering the case as set up in revision. He further submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.6.1985 and order passed by Consolidation Officer 21.7.1988 should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B.P. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the entire dispute afresh on merit. He further submitted that finding of fact that been recorded by Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court while remitting the matter back before Consolidation Officer for adjudication of entire dispute on merit which requires no interference by this Court. He further submitted that the will deed alleged to be executed by Tajammul in favour of Khursheed cannot be relied upon as Tajammul has expired before execution of alleged will deed. He submitted that wife of Tajammul was alive, as such, there was no question of execution of will deed in favour of Khursheed who is nephew of Tajammul . He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed the order for recording the name of Khursheed on the basis of will deed dated 29.4.1984 but the order dated 3.6.1985 has been set aside in appeal and the matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant portion of the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation will be relevant which is as under:- " आददश पतक नययययलयय उप ससचयलक चकबनदद मणडलय गगरखपपर, जनपदय तहसदल। वयद ससखययय- 0001478/2023 कस पययटरदकक त वयद ससखययय- 202353054700000001478 अजदज बनयम रयबबयय सद यह सपष हह, मम यह अवधयररत बकयय हह, असतगरत धयरयय- 48(1), अधधबनयमय- बक तजममपल कक मकतयप बदनयसक 09.08.1984 उ०प० जगत चकबनदद अधधबनयम, 1953 अधगहसतयकरद दयरय उभय पकक कद बवदयन अधधवकयगण दयरय पसतपत धलधखत बहस कय अवलगकन व पररशदलन बकयय गयय। अवर नययययलय बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद पपतयवलद कय अवलगकन व पररशदलन बकयय। धजससद यह सपष हह, बक बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद नद आददश बदनयसक 27.09.2021 बक सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कग वसदयत कद आधयर पर आददश करनद कय कदतयधधकयर नहह हह। जबबक सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय पशनगत आरयजद पर वसदयत कद आधयर पर खपशरद कय नयम दजर करनद कय आददश पयररत बकयय गयय हह। एस०डद०ओ० बनचललल कद आददश बदनयसक 31.07.1996 कग हग चपकक थद। वसदयत बदनयसक 29.09.1984 कग धलखद गयद हह। मकतयप कद बयरद मम एस०डद०ओ० आददश बदनयसक 31.07.1996 अननतम आददश हह। इनहद सब पकरण कग परदकण करनद कद धलयद बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद दयरय सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय पयररत आददश बदनयसक 03.06.1985 एवस चकबनदद अधधकयरद दयरय पयररत आददश बदनयसक 21.07.1988 कग बनरसत करतद हहयद चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद यहयह गपण दगष पर बनणरय करनद हदतप पतययवबतरत बकयय गयय हह। बनगरयनदकतयर कय यह मयहग हह, बक बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कय आददश बनरसत करतद हहयद सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कय आददश बदनयसक 03.06 1985 बक सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कग वसदयत कद आधयर पर आददश पयररत करनद कय कदतयधधकयर नहद हह। कयकबक वसदयत दग सयकयक सद परदबकत हगनय चयबहयद। सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद दयरय कदतयधधकयर सद बयहर जयकर आददश पयररत बकयय हह। पशनगत आरयजद पर सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय आददश पयररत हगनद कद पशचयत चकबनदद अधधकयरद कग पशनगत आरयजद पर कगई आददश पयररत नहद करनय चयबहयद। चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद दयरय पयररत आददश बदनयसक 21.07.1988 अबवधधक हह। बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद नद सहययक चकबनदद अधधकयरद / चकबनदद अधधकयरद कद आददशक कग बनरसत करकद पतयवलद गपण दगष पर बनसतयरण हदतप चकबनदद जग बनरसत अधधकयरद कग पतययवबतरत बकयय हह, बकयद जयनद यगगय हह। बदसतयर बकयय जयय। बवचयरणदय बबनदप यह हह, जग बवधधक हह। पसतपत बनगरयनद बलहदन हह, आददश रक बनषकषर कद आधयर पर पसतपत बनगरयनद बलहदन हगनद कद कयरण बनरसत बकयय जयतय उपयप हह। पतयवलद बनदगबसत अधधकयरद चकबनदद कद आददश बदनयसक 27.09.2021 कद आलगक मम पतयवलद चकबनदद अधधकयरद महरयजगसज कग इस बनदरश कद सयथ पतययवबतरत बकयय जयतय हह, बक उभय पकक कग सपनकर वयद कय बनसतयरण यथयशदघ करम। उभय पक चकबनदद अधधकयरद महरयजगसज कद नययययलय मम बदनयसक 17.01.2025 कग उपनसथत हग। अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलद आददश कक पमयबणत पबत कद सयथ वयपस कक जयय। इस नययययलय कक पतयवलद वयद आवशयक कययरवयहद दयधखल दफतर हग। बदनयसकय-31-12-24 आज यह आददश मदरद दयरय खपलद नययययलय मम हसतयकररत, ( डय० पसकज कप मयर वमयर) अपर धजलयधधकयरद/(बव०/रय०) उपससचयलक चकबनदद, महरयजगसज। बदनयसबकत एवस उदगबषत बकयय गयय। अपर धजलयधधकयरद/(बव०रय०) उपससचयलक चकबनदद, महरयजगसज।" 8. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Revisional Court fully demonstrate that matter requires adjudication of dispute on merit by Consolidation Officer after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities.

10. The writ petition is dismissed and respondent no.4, Consolidation Officer, District Maharajganj is directed to decide the dispute in pursuance of the appellate order dated 27.9.2021/ revisional order dated 31.12.2021 expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after framing issues and giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Vandana Y.