High Court · 2025

petitioner and Sri Tarun Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No body is present for private respondents.

3. This case is listed under the heading of oldest pending cases of this Court for priority hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 104 of Khata no. 214 situated in village Bheempur, District Deoria was recorded in the name of Sarjoo (father of respondent no. 3) in the basic year of consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed on behalf of the petitioner's father claiming 1/4th share in the plot in question. The case was registered as case no. 953 before the Consolidation Officer. Issues were framed and parties had adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.05.1977 dismissed the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner's father. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1977 an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner's father before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was registered as appeal no. 559/1682/1234. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and vide order dated 13.06.1978, the aforementioned appeal was allowed setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1977 and the name of petitioner's father was ordered to be recorded as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in dispute. Against the appellate order dated 13.06.1978 revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.3, which was registered as revision no. 1456. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.11.1980 allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order dated 13.06.1978 and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1977. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:4)ना अतઓ सन निनवेदन ह꽺쩗 नि(cid:17) माननी誅ꕴ न्誅ꕴा誅ꕴाल誅ꕴ निनम्न ्ቚले⹎剂 रि(cid:26)⓯㿼 पारि(cid:26)त (cid:17)(cid:26)ेंઓ- 1- नि(cid:17) निववानिदत आदे᮲⒥ निदनाँ(cid:17) 20-11-80 एवं 17-5-77 निन(cid:26)स्त नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴे। नि(cid:17) निव(cid:26)ोधी प뤿쪪 (cid:17)ो 誅ꕴह निनद)᮲⒥ निद誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ नि(cid:17) 誅ꕴाची (cid:17)ो निववानिदत भूनिम से (cid:17)ा (cid:17)ा誅ꕴा(cid:4)न्व誅ꕴन न 2- निन(cid:26)ाध्誅ꕴासिसत न (cid:17)(cid:26)ें एवं निववानिदत आदे᮲⒥ निदनां (cid:17) 20-11-80 नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ। 3- 4- नि(cid:17) उप(cid:26)ो쪺 ्ቚले⹎剂 (cid:17)े अतितरि(cid:26)쪺 अन्誅ꕴ उतिचत ्ቚले⹎剂 पारि(cid:26)त नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ। नि(cid:17) 誅ꕴातिच(cid:17)ा सव्誅ꕴ誅ꕴ स्वी(cid:17)ृ त नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ।

5. This Court admitted the writ petition on 04.11.1980 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned revisional order dated 20.11.1980. In pursuance of the Court's order dated

04.12.1980, parties have exchanged their affidavits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plot in question was recorded in the Khatauni of 1292 Fasli in the name of Bhrigun, as such the petitioner's father has rightly filed the objection against the basic year entry for recording of his name as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has illegally rejected the objection filed by the petitioner's father, but in appeal the entry of 1292 Fasli was rightly taken into consideration to hold that petitioner's father was entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the appellate order and maintaining the basic year entry of the plot in question. He next submitted that in view of the entry of 1292 Fasli of the plot in question, there is no illegality in the appellate order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation for recording the name of petitioner's father as co-tenure holder of 1/4th share in plot in 2 question. He submitted that order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the appellate order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the claim of co- tenancy set up by the petitioner's father, as such no interference is required in the matter.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the facts that Saryu son of Bechu were recorded in the basic year of the Consolidation operation over the plot in question and the title objection filed by the petitioner's father was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, but the appeal filed by the petitioner's father was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation for recording the name of petitioner's father as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question. There is no dispute about the fact that Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the appellate order and maintained the basic year entry.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, a perusal of the family pedigree as mentioned in the order of Consolidation Officer, will be relevant, which is as under:- भृगुन ं जनि7हा(cid:26)ी _________________|________________ | | नन्दन (cid:17)ु __________|___________ ____________|_____________ | | | | | | | 뤿쪪्ቔधा(cid:26)ी, ्ቦी सू(cid:26)ज7ली स(cid:26)जू, जग7हादु(cid:26), दीपन(cid:26)ा誅ꕴन, श्誅ꕴामसुन्द(cid:26) _______|______ | | | | | | | | निवन्ध्誅ꕴाचल, 7ेचू प(cid:26)महं स गो(cid:26)⹎剂 पदा(cid:26)्ቕ निवन्देस(cid:26)ी | | | | ______|_____ __ |________________________ | | | | | भगवान, मोतीचन्द (cid:26)ामस(cid:26)न, (cid:17)ोमल निव्ቫना्ቕ 3

11. The perusal of the family pedigree as quoted above fully demonstrates that petitioner's father (Shyam Sundar) and father of respondent no. 3 (Saryu) both are sons of Kunjbihari. The entry of 1292 Fasli demonstrates that plot in question was recorded in the name of Bhrigun. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly taken into consideration the entry of 1292 Fasli in holding that petitioner's father Shyma Sundar is entitled to be recorded as co- tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question as disputed plot is not self acquired property of Saryu (father of respondent no. 3).

12. The finding of facts recorded by appellate Court has been illegally interfered with by Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act without considering the entry of 1292 Fasli in proper manner.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 20.11.1980 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation-respondent no. 1 is liable to be set aside and same is hereby set aside.

14. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 13.06.1978 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4

petitioner and Sri Tarun Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No body is present for private respondents.

3. This case is listed under the heading of oldest pending cases of this Court for priority hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 104 of Khata no. 214 situated in village Bheempur, District Deoria was recorded in the name of Sarjoo (father of respondent no. 3) in the basic year of consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed on behalf of the petitioner's father claiming 1/4th share in the plot in question. The case was registered as case no. 953 before the Consolidation Officer. Issues were framed and parties had adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.05.1977 dismissed the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner's father. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1977 an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner's father before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was registered as appeal no. 559/1682/1234. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and vide order dated 13.06.1978, the aforementioned appeal was allowed setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1977 and the name of petitioner's father was ordered to be recorded as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in dispute. Against the appellate order dated 13.06.1978 revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.3, which was registered as revision no. 1456. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.11.1980 allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order dated 13.06.1978 and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.1977. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:4)ना अतઓ सन निनवेदन ह꽺쩗 नि(cid:17) माननी誅ꕴ न्誅ꕴा誅ꕴाल誅ꕴ निनम्न ्ቚले⹎剂 रि(cid:26)⓯㿼 पारि(cid:26)त (cid:17)(cid:26)ेंઓ- 1- नि(cid:17) निववानिदत आदे᮲⒥ निदनाँ(cid:17) 20-11-80 एवं 17-5-77 निन(cid:26)स्त नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴे। नि(cid:17) निव(cid:26)ोधी प뤿쪪 (cid:17)ो 誅ꕴह निनद)᮲⒥ निद誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ नि(cid:17) 誅ꕴाची (cid:17)ो निववानिदत भूनिम से (cid:17)ा (cid:17)ा誅ꕴा(cid:4)न्व誅ꕴन न 2- निन(cid:26)ाध्誅ꕴासिसत न (cid:17)(cid:26)ें एवं निववानिदत आदे᮲⒥ निदनां (cid:17) 20-11-80 नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ। 3- 4- नि(cid:17) उप(cid:26)ो쪺 ्ቚले⹎剂 (cid:17)े अतितरि(cid:26)쪺 अन्誅ꕴ उतिचत ्ቚले⹎剂 पारि(cid:26)त नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ। नि(cid:17) 誅ꕴातिच(cid:17)ा सव्誅ꕴ誅ꕴ स्वी(cid:17)ृ त नि(cid:17)誅ꕴा जा誅ꕴ।

5. This Court admitted the writ petition on 04.11.1980 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned revisional order dated 20.11.1980. In pursuance of the Court's order dated

04.12.1980, parties have exchanged their affidavits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plot in question was recorded in the Khatauni of 1292 Fasli in the name of Bhrigun, as such the petitioner's father has rightly filed the objection against the basic year entry for recording of his name as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has illegally rejected the objection filed by the petitioner's father, but in appeal the entry of 1292 Fasli was rightly taken into consideration to hold that petitioner's father was entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the appellate order and maintaining the basic year entry of the plot in question. He next submitted that in view of the entry of 1292 Fasli of the plot in question, there is no illegality in the appellate order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation for recording the name of petitioner's father as co-tenure holder of 1/4th share in plot in 2 question. He submitted that order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the appellate order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the claim of co- tenancy set up by the petitioner's father, as such no interference is required in the matter.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the facts that Saryu son of Bechu were recorded in the basic year of the Consolidation operation over the plot in question and the title objection filed by the petitioner's father was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, but the appeal filed by the petitioner's father was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation for recording the name of petitioner's father as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question. There is no dispute about the fact that Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the appellate order and maintained the basic year entry.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, a perusal of the family pedigree as mentioned in the order of Consolidation Officer, will be relevant, which is as under:- भृगुन ं जनि7हा(cid:26)ी _________________|________________ | | नन्दन (cid:17)ु __________|___________ ____________|_____________ | | | | | | | 뤿쪪्ቔधा(cid:26)ी, ्ቦी सू(cid:26)ज7ली स(cid:26)जू, जग7हादु(cid:26), दीपन(cid:26)ा誅ꕴन, श्誅ꕴामसुन्द(cid:26) _______|______ | | | | | | | | निवन्ध्誅ꕴाचल, 7ेचू प(cid:26)महं स गो(cid:26)⹎剂 पदा(cid:26)्ቕ निवन्देस(cid:26)ी | | | | ______|_____ __ |________________________ | | | | | भगवान, मोतीचन्द (cid:26)ामस(cid:26)न, (cid:17)ोमल निव्ቫना्ቕ 3

11. The perusal of the family pedigree as quoted above fully demonstrates that petitioner's father (Shyam Sundar) and father of respondent no. 3 (Saryu) both are sons of Kunjbihari. The entry of 1292 Fasli demonstrates that plot in question was recorded in the name of Bhrigun. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly taken into consideration the entry of 1292 Fasli in holding that petitioner's father Shyma Sundar is entitled to be recorded as co- tenure holder having 1/4th share in the plot in question as disputed plot is not self acquired property of Saryu (father of respondent no. 3).

12. The finding of facts recorded by appellate Court has been illegally interfered with by Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act without considering the entry of 1292 Fasli in proper manner.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 20.11.1980 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation-respondent no. 1 is liable to be set aside and same is hereby set aside.

14. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 13.06.1978 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4