Udaybhan & Anr. v. Party(s)

Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhola Nath Yadav, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the review-applicants, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel who is petitioner no.1 in Writ- B No.2973 of 2025 & Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the writ-petitioners/ opposite parties.

2. The instant review applications have been filed to review the final judgement dated 18.9.2025 passed in Writ-B No.2973 of 2025 & Writ-B No.3516 of 2025 on the following grounds as setup in Review Application No.19 of 2026 & 20 of 2026: 2 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 Grounds of Review Application No.19 of 2026 "(I) Because, the Judgement and order dated 18.9.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court is erroneous, perverse and illegal on the face of record as such is liable to be set aside. (II) Because, quashing of the D.D.C. order dated 30.6.2025 has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice reinstated a defective consolidation scheme, failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (III) Because, the finding that the D.D.C. lacked jurisdiction due to delay or section 52 notification is legally erroneous as the matter was continuously agitated through the statutory mechanism provided under the Act. (IV) Because, original consolidation scheme failed to allot the appiciants' main plot, Gata no. 216 (area 0.254 hect.) which contains valuable a improvements (samunnatiyan) specifically pumping set and residential structures (Makan and Pumping set) into their compact chak. (V) Because, the revisional power of the DDC under section 48(1) is extremely wife, allowing the DDC to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order further more, explanation (3) to the Section 48 includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence and examine any finding of fact or law. (VI) Because, the adjustment of the chak road was consequential and incidental relief necessary to enforce the main finding regarding the allotment of Gata no. 216 to the applicants due to the presence of improvement (section 19(1)(f). The applicants main grievances was the non allotment of their land with improvement, the road lay on that land. The DDC in correcting the substantive error in the chak, must necessarily have adjusted the corresponding road. (VII) Because, the objection under section 9-B can not vitiated the DDC's order when the final chak decision, on which the road depended was found to be substantively flawed. The DDC, in revision, had the power to make all consequential orders necessary to give effects to the statutory provision of section 19(1)(f). (VIII) Because, the error in the High Court's order is one of law, an omission to consider the absolute and non derogable nature of command under section 19(1)(f) of the U.P.C.H. Act and a misapplication of the scope of revisional jurisdiction under 3 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 section 48. (IX) Because, the revisional power under section 48 of the Act is wide, empowering the DDC to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any subordinate order and includes the power to re-appreciate evidence to ensure justice. (X) Because, the decision was a necessary corrective applicants step to review protect the improvements (pumping set/house) and allot a compact chak in accordance with law. The finding that such an order falls outside the DDC's revisional competence is an error of law apparent on the face of record. (XI) Because the applicants/respondent no. 6 and 7 have pumping set (irrigation facility) on chak no. 216, so by passing chakroad bifurcate the irrigation and further development on field of the applicants (respondent no. 6 and 7) which creates irreparable loss and injury, The Chakroad may be proposed to out side Gata no. 216 upto Chak no. 216. (XII) Because the petitioners and others respondents of the writ petition have optional way to approach his new constructed house from the old Abadi, New Proposed Chak marg in order passed by D.D.C. dated 30.6.2025 deciding the both the revision no. 413/2-23 and 414/2023, it only help. the Shivshankar and Rajesh Yadav (both the petitioners). (XIII) Because the order impugned apparent on the face of record qua UPCH Act by overlooking that the revisionist under section 48 were filed against rejection of recall/ restoration tenure holder, such revisional jurisdiction under section 48(1) permit interference for jurisdictional erros or material Irregularities in chak proceedings under section 20, independent of statement of principles objections under section 9-B. this constitutes error apparent as section 11-A bars only post consolidation challenges to statement of Principles, not revisional scrutiny of chak disturbances post section 52 notification. (XIV) Because the violation of natural justice and jurisdictional overreach impugned order sets aside revisional relief granting chak road access to agricultural plots for multiple tenure holder ignoring the interest of applicants(respondent no. 6 and 7) providing the chak road mid of their chaks illegally exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Impugned order set aside the revisional relief granting chak road access to agricultural plots for multiple tenure holder, without notice or hearing to them on 4 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 writ listing, infringing article 226 principles- D.D.C. ignoring interest of applicants (respondent no. 6 and 7) exercised jurisdiction under section 48 to rectify chak road omission affecting village access not de hors UPCH Act as presumed review warranted for patent illegality. (XV) Because the error to consider statutory mandate under section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. C.H. Act, this Hon'ble Court failed to consider and apply the mandatory provisions of under section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. C.H. Act which requires the consolidation authorities, as for as possible, to allot a tenure holder's chak near the original holding where a private source of irrigation or other improvements exists. (XVI) Because the authorities ignored the applicants (respondent no. 6 and 7) relief and applicants(respondent no. 6 and 7) always pray to prepare their chak to its original number 216 alongwith his total area and prepare square chak, if not possible then prepare the chak on its original number 216 and 220 according their original holding and prepare the drainage from chak no. 216 to 260. (XVII) Because the Consolidation authorities passed the order on technicalities without entering into the merits of the case stating therein that he has no jurisdiction which creates the irreparable loss and injury, and violate to opportunity of hearing and against the natural justice. (XVIII) Because the impugned order dated 18.9.2025 violate the principal of natural justice in proper consideration of the objection, DDC passed the order dated

30.6.2025, SOC and CO passed the order without application of mind in mechanical confirmation of scheme, mere formalities or blanket confirmation, under section 20 of C.H. Act. in illegal and unsustainable in eye of law." Grounds of Review Application No.20 of 2026 "(I) Because, the Judgement and order dated 18.9.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court is erroneous, perverse and illegal on the face of record as such is liable to be set aside. (II) Because, quashing of the D.D.C. order dated 30.6.2025 has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice reinstated a defective consolidation scheme, failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (III) Because, the finding that the D.D.C. lacked jurisdiction due to delay or section 5 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 52 notification is legally erroneous as the matter was continuously agitated through the statutory mechanism provided under the Act. (IV) Because, original consolidation scheme failed to allot the appiciants' main plot, Gata no. 216 (area 0.254 contains valuable a hect.) which improvements (samunnatiyan) specifically pumping set and residential structures (Makan and Pumping set) into their compact chak. (V) Because, the revisional power of the DDC under section 48(1) is extremely wife, allowing the DDC to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order further more, explanation (3) to the Section 48 includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence and examine any finding of fact or law. (VI) Because, the adjustment of the chak road was consequential and incidental relief necessary to enforce the main finding regarding the allotment of Gata no. 216 to the applicants due to the presence of improvement (section 19(1)(f). The applicants main grievances was the non allotment of their land with improvement, the road lay on that land. The DDC in correcting the substantive error in the chak, must necessarily have adjusted the corresponding road. (VII) Because, the objection under section 9-B can not vitiated the DDC's order when the final chak decision, on which the road depended was found to be substantively flawed. The DDC, in revision, had the power to make all consequential orders necessary to give effects to the statutory provision of section 19(1)(f). (VIII) Because, the error in the High Court's order is one of law, an omission to consider the absolute and non derogable nature of command under section 19(1)(f) of the U.P.C.H. Act and a misapplication of the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 48. (IX) Because, the revisional power under section 48 of the Act is wide, empowering the DDC to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any subordinate order and includes the power to re-appreciate evidence to ensure justice. (X) Because, the decision was a necessary corrective step to protect the review applicants improvements (pumping set/house) and allot a compact chak in accordance with law. The finding that such an order falls outside the DDC's revisional competence is an error of law apparent on the face of record. 6 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 (XI) Because the applicants/respondent no. 6 and 7 have pumping set (irrigation facility) on chak no. 216, so by passing chakroad bifurcate the irrigation and further development on field of the applicants(respondent no. 6 and 7) which creates irreparable loss and injury, The Chakroad may be proposed to out side Gata no. 216 upto Chak no. 216. (XII) Because the petitioners and others respondents of the writ petition have optional way to approach his new constructed house from the old Abadi, New Proposed Chak marg in order passed by D.D.C. dated 30.6.2025 deciding the both the revision no. 413/2-23 and 414/2023, it only help the Shivshankar and Rajesh Yadav (both the petitioners). (XIII) Because the order impugned apparent on the face of record qua UPCH Act by overlooking that the revisionist under section 48 were filed against rejection of recall/ restoration tenure holder, such revisional jurisdiction under section 48(1) permit Interference for jurisdictional erros or material irregularities in chak proceedings under section 20, independent of statement of principles objections under section 9-B. this constitutes error apparent as section 11-A bars only post consolidation challenges to statement of Principles, not revisional scrutiny of chak disturbances post section 52 notification. (XIV) and Because the violation of natural justice jurisdictional overreach impugned order sets aside revisional relief granting chak road access to agricultural plots for multiple tenure holder ignoring the interest of applicants(respondent no. 6 and 7) providing the chak road mid of their chaks illegally exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Impugned order set aside the revisional relief granting chak road access to agricultural plots for multiple tenure holder, without notice or hearing to them on listing, infringing article 226 principles D.D.C. ignoring interest of applicants(respondent no. 6 and 7) exercised Jurisdiction under section 48 to rectify chak road omission affecting village access not de hors UPCH Act as presumed review warranted for patent illegality. (XV) Because the error to consider statutory mandate under section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. C.H. Act, this Hon'ble Court failed to consider and apply the mandatory provisions of under section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. C.H. Act which requires the consolidation authorities, as for as possible, to allot a tenure holder's chak near the original holding where a private source of irrigations or other Improvements exists. 7 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 (XVI) Because the authorities ignored the applicants (respondent no. 6 and 7) relief and applicants (respondent no. 6 and 7) always pray to prepare their chak to its original number 216 alongwith his total area and prepare square chak, if not possible then prepare the chak on its original number 216 and 220 according their original holding and prepare the drainage from chak no. 216 to 260. (XVII) Because the Consolidation authorities passed the order on technicalities without entering into the merits of the case stating therein that he has no jurisdiction which creates the irreparable loss and injury, and violate to opportunity of hearing and against the natural justice. (XVIII) Because the impugned order dated 18.9.2025 violate the principal of natural justice in proper consideration of the objection, DDC passed the order dated

30.6.2025, SOC and CO passed the order without application of mind in mechanical confirmation of scheme, mere formalities or blanket confirmation, under section 20 of C.H. Act in illegal and unsustainable in eye of law."

3. Delay in filing the review applications have been condoned by the order of this Court dated 11.2.2026.

4. Writ- B No.2973 of 2025 along with Writ-B No.3516 of 2025 were heard in presence of learned counsel for the parties and writ petitions were allowed vide judgement dated 18.9.2025.

5. Proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 who was appearing aforementioned writ petitions, as such, filing of review application by another counsel is not permissible.

6. In spite of the aforementioned fact, learned counsel for the review- applicant has been heard in support of the aforementioned review applications.

7. The point which has been raised by learned counsel for the review applicant has already been considered by this Court while deciding the aforementioned two writ petitions.

8. So for as scope of review application is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2023) 160 RD 107 S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. 8 CMRA No. 19 of 2026 Narayana Reddy and Others has held that review is not rehearing. Paragraph no.35 of the judgment rendered in S. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which is as under: "35. In our opinion, even otherwise, recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible more so, when the Respondents have miserably failed to draw the attention of this Court to any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction within the ambit of the Rules. Under the rules, the Respondents were not required to produce "genuine" documents but new documents/evidence that was not within their knowledge and could not have been so even after exercise of due diligence, which could have turned the tables in their favour. Nor has any error apparent on the face of the record been brought out by them."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the final judgement passed by this Court in the writ petitions arising out of proceeding of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,

10. The review applications are accordingly, rejected. February 24, 2026 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)