Counsel for v. Kumar, S.N. Singh, Vishnu

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased respondent no.2/2.

3. Notice was issued to the proposed heir of deceased respondent no.2/2.

4. As per office report, service is deemed to be sufficient upon the proposed heir of deceased respondent no.2/2.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent no.2/2 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as respondent nos.2/2/1 to 2/2/5.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. Order on writ petition

1. Heard Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar as well as Sri Narendra Shanker holding the brief of Sri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the 2 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent inspite of the notice issued on the substitution application to the deceased private respondent, although counter affidavit filed by earlier counsel of respondent no. 2 is already on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the statement of Principle prepared Plot No. 1258 was execluded from Consolidation operation. Petitioner filed an application under Section 5C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred as U.P.C.H. Act) for making construction over plot no. 1258. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated

01.03.1974 permitted the petitioner to make construction of house over plot no. 1258. After finalization of the proceeding under Sections 9 & 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, chak holder no. 49 namely Kamla Rai/ respondent no. 2 filed an application for providing chak road through plot no. 1258. Consolidation Officer proposed the chak road through plot no. 1258 to chak holder no. 49/respondent no. 2/Kamla Rai and also ordered that plot no. 1258 should be valued and brought into Consolidation operation. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, appeal was filed by petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The appeal was registered as appeal no. 2250 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed vide order dated

18.11.1977. Against the appellate order dated 18.11.1977, revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no. 2/Chak holder no. 49/Kamla Rai, which was registered as Revision No. 440/2631 under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.08.1978. Hence, this petition for following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of 3 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 certiorari calling upon the respondent no. 1 to produce the record in which the impugned order dated 17.08.1978 has been passed for the purpose of its being quashed, or be pleased to issue such other writs or directions as may be deemed fit and proper, so that justice be done. To award costs to the petitioners."

4. This Court admitted the writ petition on 26.09.1978 and stayed the operation of the revisional order dated 17.08.1978. By subsequent order dated 24.08.1979, the interim order granted on 26.09.1978 has been confirmed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in proper manner, but Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised the revisional jurisdiction in arbitrary manner while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that provision of Section 11A of the U.P.C.H. Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. He submitted that revision filed by the private respondent no. 2 was time barred, but without passing any order on the delay condonation matter, the revision has been allowed on merit. He submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained even on merit in view of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required in the matter in view finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the appeal filed by the 4 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 petitioner was allowed in respect to plot no. 1258 vide order dated 18.11.1977, but in revision filed by respondent no. 2 the order of appellate Court has been set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.08.1978.

9. Under U.P.C.H. Act provision has been made for filing objection against the statement of principle, title and chak within limitation prescribed under the Act, otherwise bar of Section 11-A of U.P.C.H. Act will be applicable. Section 11-A of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant for perusal, which is as under:- "11A. [ Bar on objection. - No question in respect of - (i) claims to land, (ii) partition of joint holdings, and (iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10, relating to the consolidation area,] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963.] [which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969.], but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings."

10. In the instant matter Consolidation Officer on the basis of the objection filed by respondent no. 2 to provide chak road, put the plot no. 1258 under Consolidation operation at very late stage coupled with the fact that there was no objection by any body at the proper stage of Consolidation operation regarding statement of principle, title or chak, as such exercise of 5 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer was illegal

11. The appellate Court has properly exercised the appellate jurisdiction in respect to the Plot No. 1258, but on the basis of time barred revision the order of appellate Court has been set aside on misconceived ground. There is no order on record condoning the delay in filing the revision, as such revision cannot be allowed on merit.

12. The law is well settled that time barred proceeding cannot be allowed without passing proper order for condonation of delay in initiating the proceeding.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.08.1978 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The revisional order dated 17.08.1978 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

14. The writ petition is allowed and the appellate order dated 18.11.1977 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Neetu (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased respondent no.2/2.

3. Notice was issued to the proposed heir of deceased respondent no.2/2.

4. As per office report, service is deemed to be sufficient upon the proposed heir of deceased respondent no.2/2.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent no.2/2 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as respondent nos.2/2/1 to 2/2/5.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. Order on writ petition

1. Heard Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar as well as Sri Narendra Shanker holding the brief of Sri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the 2 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent inspite of the notice issued on the substitution application to the deceased private respondent, although counter affidavit filed by earlier counsel of respondent no. 2 is already on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the statement of Principle prepared Plot No. 1258 was execluded from Consolidation operation. Petitioner filed an application under Section 5C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred as U.P.C.H. Act) for making construction over plot no. 1258. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated

01.03.1974 permitted the petitioner to make construction of house over plot no. 1258. After finalization of the proceeding under Sections 9 & 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, chak holder no. 49 namely Kamla Rai/ respondent no. 2 filed an application for providing chak road through plot no. 1258. Consolidation Officer proposed the chak road through plot no. 1258 to chak holder no. 49/respondent no. 2/Kamla Rai and also ordered that plot no. 1258 should be valued and brought into Consolidation operation. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, appeal was filed by petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The appeal was registered as appeal no. 2250 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed vide order dated

18.11.1977. Against the appellate order dated 18.11.1977, revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no. 2/Chak holder no. 49/Kamla Rai, which was registered as Revision No. 440/2631 under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.08.1978. Hence, this petition for following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of 3 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 certiorari calling upon the respondent no. 1 to produce the record in which the impugned order dated 17.08.1978 has been passed for the purpose of its being quashed, or be pleased to issue such other writs or directions as may be deemed fit and proper, so that justice be done. To award costs to the petitioners."

4. This Court admitted the writ petition on 26.09.1978 and stayed the operation of the revisional order dated 17.08.1978. By subsequent order dated 24.08.1979, the interim order granted on 26.09.1978 has been confirmed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in proper manner, but Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised the revisional jurisdiction in arbitrary manner while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that provision of Section 11A of the U.P.C.H. Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. He submitted that revision filed by the private respondent no. 2 was time barred, but without passing any order on the delay condonation matter, the revision has been allowed on merit. He submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained even on merit in view of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required in the matter in view finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the appeal filed by the 4 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 petitioner was allowed in respect to plot no. 1258 vide order dated 18.11.1977, but in revision filed by respondent no. 2 the order of appellate Court has been set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.08.1978.

9. Under U.P.C.H. Act provision has been made for filing objection against the statement of principle, title and chak within limitation prescribed under the Act, otherwise bar of Section 11-A of U.P.C.H. Act will be applicable. Section 11-A of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant for perusal, which is as under:- "11A. [ Bar on objection. - No question in respect of - (i) claims to land, (ii) partition of joint holdings, and (iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10, relating to the consolidation area,] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963.] [which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969.], but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings."

10. In the instant matter Consolidation Officer on the basis of the objection filed by respondent no. 2 to provide chak road, put the plot no. 1258 under Consolidation operation at very late stage coupled with the fact that there was no objection by any body at the proper stage of Consolidation operation regarding statement of principle, title or chak, as such exercise of 5 WRIB No. 8382 of 1978 jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer was illegal

11. The appellate Court has properly exercised the appellate jurisdiction in respect to the Plot No. 1258, but on the basis of time barred revision the order of appellate Court has been set aside on misconceived ground. There is no order on record condoning the delay in filing the revision, as such revision cannot be allowed on merit.

12. The law is well settled that time barred proceeding cannot be allowed without passing proper order for condonation of delay in initiating the proceeding.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.08.1978 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The revisional order dated 17.08.1978 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

14. The writ petition is allowed and the appellate order dated 18.11.1977 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Neetu (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad