Kashi and others v. Ram Phal) under Section

referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") has been challenged before this Court on

10.5.2025.

4. Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of the plot in question objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the private respondents which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.10.1978 for recording the name of private respondents after expunging the name of the petitioner's father-Ram Phal. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.10.1978, an appeal was filed by the petitioner's father under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 6.7.1980 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer and maintaining the basic year entry. Against the appellate order dated 6.7.1980 private respondents filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria vide order dated

21.9.1981 setting aside the appellate order and maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.9.1981 passed by respondent no.2 in revision no.1169/ 1358 (Kashi and others vs. Ram Phal) under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 28.10.1978 in Case No.18904 (Kashi and others vs. Ram Phal) under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure Nos.1 & 2) ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to do not taken coercive action regarding the possession of the petitioner of the question in land."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father was recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation but consolidation officer has illegally expunged the basic year entry in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that time barred appeal filed by the petitioners' father was allowed and basic year entry was maintained but in revision Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally maintained the order of Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed before 44 years but the laches in filing the instant petition is explained in paragraph no.14 onward. He further submitted that petitioners' father has expired and petitioners were not aware about the order dated 21.9.1981. He further submitted that as soon as the petitioners came to know about the order, a restoration application has been filed in the proceeding initiated by private respondents under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Rules"). He further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a restoration application on

25.9.2017 against the order dated 21.9.1981 passed in the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on the application of the petitioner himself. He further that respondent no.11 (petitioner's brother) filed a Writ-B No.30694 of 2017 before this Court for mandamus directing the respondent no.1/ Registrar General of this Court to trace out the record of Writ-B No.13665 of 1981 (Ram Pal Vs. Kashi and Others) as well as direct the Consolidation Officer not to initiate proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. He further submitted that report was submitted by Writ-B Section of this Court to the effect that no such writ petition being Writ-B No.13665 of 1981 was ever filed or pending before this Court, accordingly, writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2017. He further submitted that dispute relates to title under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the instant writ petition should be entertained against the order passed in the title revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that in the basic year of consolidation operation, petitioner's father was recorded, as such, the dispute requires adjudication on merit.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is inordinate delay of 44 years in filing the instant petition, as such, the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. He further submitted that the petitioner's father was party in the title revision which was decided vide order dated 21.9.1981 and he has not taken any steps in his lifetime, as such, the filing of instant after 44 years by the petitioner cannot be entertained.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that time barred title revision filed by filed by Kashi (father of respondent no.5 ) was allowed vide order dated

21.9.1981 passed by respondent no.2 / Deputy Director of Consolidation maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer. There is also no dispute about the fact that instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner after 44 years from the date of passing of the revisional order dated

21.9.1981.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the earlier order dated 21.8.2017 of this Court passed in Writ-B No.30694 of 2017 will be relevant, which is as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Bushra Mariam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Before the argument could start, Sri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel sought to move an impleadment application with the prayer that Kashi, who is the affected party, may be impleaded. However, in view of the order dated that is being passed on the basis of the instructions received by Ms. Bushra Mariam, learned counsel, a copy whereof is taken on record. I am not inclined to entertain the impleadment application. Present petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to trace out the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13665 of 1981 (Ram Phal Vs. Kashi and others) District Deoria Group B. Further prayer is to issue direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Kasya, District Kushi Nagar not to initiate proceeding under Rule 109 of U.P.C.H. Rules 1954. A perusal of report submitted by Writ B Section indicates that no such writ petition being Writ B No. 13665 of 1981 (Ram Phal Vs. Kashi and others) District Deoria was ever filed or pending before this Court. Perusal of report of Writ B Section is categorical in this respect. Report submitted by Writ C Section is to the effect that writ petition being Writ C No. 13665 of 1981 was filed in Writ C Section, but the party's names are different and the district is also different i.e. Deoria and the same was allowed on 18.5.1993. Writ C number as submitted by Writ C Section is Writ C No. 13665 of 1981 (Murli Manohar Chaubey Vs. 1st Addl. D.J. & Ors. District Banda. From the description itself, it is clear that District where the controversy involved in the present case is of District Kushi Nagar carved out from District Deoria and the description of respondents also indicates that it could not have been related with the controversy involved in the present case. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition. Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed."

10. Perusal of the earlier order dated 21.8.2017 as quoted above which was passed in Writ-B No.30694 of 2017 filed by petitioner's real brother fully demonstrates that no writ petition was filed by the petitioner's father against the revisional order dated 21.9.1981. The record further demonstrates that the petitioner initially filed application for restoration in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules but no steps has been taken for recalling the order dated 21.9.1981 passed in title revision. Restoration application which was filed on behalf of the petitioner with inordinate delay before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 21.9.1981 has been dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner after 44 years from the date of passing of the revisional order dated 21.9.1981 in title revision can not be entertained .

12. No interference is required against the order dated 21.9.1981 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in title revision filed by the father of respondent no.5.

13. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Rameez

referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") has been challenged before this Court on

10.5.2025.

4. Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of the plot in question objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the private respondents which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.10.1978 for recording the name of private respondents after expunging the name of the petitioner's father-Ram Phal. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.10.1978, an appeal was filed by the petitioner's father under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 6.7.1980 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer and maintaining the basic year entry. Against the appellate order dated 6.7.1980 private respondents filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria vide order dated

21.9.1981 setting aside the appellate order and maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.9.1981 passed by respondent no.2 in revision no.1169/ 1358 (Kashi and others vs. Ram Phal) under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 28.10.1978 in Case No.18904 (Kashi and others vs. Ram Phal) under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure Nos.1 & 2) ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to do not taken coercive action regarding the possession of the petitioner of the question in land."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father was recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation but consolidation officer has illegally expunged the basic year entry in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that time barred appeal filed by the petitioners' father was allowed and basic year entry was maintained but in revision Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally maintained the order of Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed before 44 years but the laches in filing the instant petition is explained in paragraph no.14 onward. He further submitted that petitioners' father has expired and petitioners were not aware about the order dated 21.9.1981. He further submitted that as soon as the petitioners came to know about the order, a restoration application has been filed in the proceeding initiated by private respondents under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Rules"). He further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a restoration application on

25.9.2017 against the order dated 21.9.1981 passed in the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on the application of the petitioner himself. He further that respondent no.11 (petitioner's brother) filed a Writ-B No.30694 of 2017 before this Court for mandamus directing the respondent no.1/ Registrar General of this Court to trace out the record of Writ-B No.13665 of 1981 (Ram Pal Vs. Kashi and Others) as well as direct the Consolidation Officer not to initiate proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. He further submitted that report was submitted by Writ-B Section of this Court to the effect that no such writ petition being Writ-B No.13665 of 1981 was ever filed or pending before this Court, accordingly, writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2017. He further submitted that dispute relates to title under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the instant writ petition should be entertained against the order passed in the title revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that in the basic year of consolidation operation, petitioner's father was recorded, as such, the dispute requires adjudication on merit.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is inordinate delay of 44 years in filing the instant petition, as such, the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. He further submitted that the petitioner's father was party in the title revision which was decided vide order dated 21.9.1981 and he has not taken any steps in his lifetime, as such, the filing of instant after 44 years by the petitioner cannot be entertained.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that time barred title revision filed by filed by Kashi (father of respondent no.5 ) was allowed vide order dated

21.9.1981 passed by respondent no.2 / Deputy Director of Consolidation maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer. There is also no dispute about the fact that instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner after 44 years from the date of passing of the revisional order dated

21.9.1981.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the earlier order dated 21.8.2017 of this Court passed in Writ-B No.30694 of 2017 will be relevant, which is as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Bushra Mariam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Before the argument could start, Sri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel sought to move an impleadment application with the prayer that Kashi, who is the affected party, may be impleaded. However, in view of the order dated that is being passed on the basis of the instructions received by Ms. Bushra Mariam, learned counsel, a copy whereof is taken on record. I am not inclined to entertain the impleadment application. Present petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to trace out the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13665 of 1981 (Ram Phal Vs. Kashi and others) District Deoria Group B. Further prayer is to issue direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Kasya, District Kushi Nagar not to initiate proceeding under Rule 109 of U.P.C.H. Rules 1954. A perusal of report submitted by Writ B Section indicates that no such writ petition being Writ B No. 13665 of 1981 (Ram Phal Vs. Kashi and others) District Deoria was ever filed or pending before this Court. Perusal of report of Writ B Section is categorical in this respect. Report submitted by Writ C Section is to the effect that writ petition being Writ C No. 13665 of 1981 was filed in Writ C Section, but the party's names are different and the district is also different i.e. Deoria and the same was allowed on 18.5.1993. Writ C number as submitted by Writ C Section is Writ C No. 13665 of 1981 (Murli Manohar Chaubey Vs. 1st Addl. D.J. & Ors. District Banda. From the description itself, it is clear that District where the controversy involved in the present case is of District Kushi Nagar carved out from District Deoria and the description of respondents also indicates that it could not have been related with the controversy involved in the present case. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition. Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed."

10. Perusal of the earlier order dated 21.8.2017 as quoted above which was passed in Writ-B No.30694 of 2017 filed by petitioner's real brother fully demonstrates that no writ petition was filed by the petitioner's father against the revisional order dated 21.9.1981. The record further demonstrates that the petitioner initially filed application for restoration in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules but no steps has been taken for recalling the order dated 21.9.1981 passed in title revision. Restoration application which was filed on behalf of the petitioner with inordinate delay before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 21.9.1981 has been dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner after 44 years from the date of passing of the revisional order dated 21.9.1981 in title revision can not be entertained .

12. No interference is required against the order dated 21.9.1981 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in title revision filed by the father of respondent no.5.

13. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Rameez