Mihi Lal … v. J.D.C. And Others

1. Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-Gram Samaj and Sri Sharad Chand Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No one is present on behalf of private respondent.

3. The case is listed under heading of oldest pending cases for priority hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that an objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) was filed on behalf of petitioners in respect to chak nos. 85 and 86, which was registered as Case No. 2856 of 1977. The petitioner claimed the right on the basis of succession in the Issues were framed before aforementioned chak in question. Consolidation Officer and parties adduced evidence in support of their case. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 03.01.1978 allowed the claim of petitioners under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act and directed to record the name of petitioners over chak nos. 85 and 86 in place of deceased Dilshukh S/o Tika Ram. Against the order of Consolidation Officer one appeal was filed by Beni Ram S/o Jorawar Singh , which was registered as appeal no. 26 and another appeal was filed by Gram Samaj, which was registered as appeal no. 31. Both the aforementioned appeals were clubbed and heard together. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 22.8.1978 allowed the appeal in part and directed for vesting the chak no. 85 in Gaon Sabha, but the order of 2 <Case Number> Consolidation Officer in respect to chak no. 86 was maintained. The petitioners filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as revision no. 479. The aforementioned revision was heard by Joint Director of Consolidation and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.1979. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for following reliefs:- "(a) A writ of certiorari quashing the judgment of Joint Director Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation; (b) A writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 to maintain the judgment of the Consolidation Officer; (c) Any other writ, order direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (d) Award costs of the petition."

5. The aforementioned writ petition was admitted on 13.11.1979 and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed by this Court. In pursuance of the order of this Court parties have exchanged their pleadings.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have claimed the right on the basis of succession being son of Karan. He further submitted that Family Pedigree is mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer, which demonstrates that in absence of sons, daughter and widow of Dil Sukh petitioners have rightly been ordered to be recorded in place of Dil Sukh. He next submitted that proper issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer and parties had adduced evidence, as such Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioners. He submitted that in appeal filed by one stranger Beni Ram as well as Gram Samaj, the order passed by Consolidation Officer has been illegally set aside on the ground that Dil Sukh had died leaving behind no legal heir without considering the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in proper manner. He further submitted that no claim was set up by Gram Sabha before the Consolidation Officer, as such the appeal filed by Gram Samaj cannot be entertained. He next submitted that provisions of Section 175 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act has been rightly taken into consideration by Consolidation Officer, while allowing the claim of the petitioner under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case of petitioners as set up in revision. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by revisional Court and appellate Court should be set aside and order of Consolidation Officer should be maintained.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. They further submitted that proper finding has been recorded by the appellate Court 3 <Case Number> and revisional Court, while rejecting the claim of petitioner in respect to chak no. 85. They next submitted that provisions contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act will not be applicable in the instant matter, as such no interference is required and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act initiated by petitioner on the basis of succession in respect to chak nos. 85 and 86 was allowed by Consolidation Officer, but in appeal the chak no. 85 was ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the Family Pedigree will be relevant for perusal, which is as under:- गोपी चेती झम्मन करन िሺ(cid:16)ह टीकाराम उ्ቛ(cid:22) नेकराम मेधा िሺ(cid:16)ह (cid:16)ालि(cid:25)कराम मिमही (cid:25)ा(cid:25) मि(cid:27)(cid:25) (cid:16)ुख

11. The perusal of the two issues framed by Consolidation Officer will be also relevant, which are as under:- उपरो्ሹ आधार पर मिनम्न मि ा(cid:27) मि!न्(cid:27)ु !नाये गयेः- 1- क्या मि(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:16)ुख मृतक के कानूनी ारिर(cid:16) मिमही(cid:25)ा(cid:25) आमि(cid:27) ा(cid:27)ीगण हैं? 2- क्या मि(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:16)ुख (cid:25)ा ारिर(cid:16) पौ्ቔ हुए हैं और उ(cid:16)की जाय(cid:27)ा(cid:27) !ची ारिर(cid:16) ्ቇाम (cid:16)माज है?

12. The Consolidation Officer considering the Family Pedigree, revenue entry as well as the oral evidence adduced by the parties has recorded finding of fact for recording the name of petitioners on the basis of succession in the place of deceased Dil Sukh. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has maintained the order of Consolidation Officer in 4 <Case Number> respect to chak no. 86, but in respect to the chak no. 85 the order has been passed for vesting the chak no. 85 in Gaon Sabha on the ground that Dil Sukh has died leaving behind no issues. The finding recorded by the appellate Court vesting the chak no. 85 in Gaon Sabha cannot be sustained in view of the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer in the light of the provision contained under Section 175 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

13.The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not been exercised the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with law.

14. Considering the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer as well as the provisions contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the impugned appellate order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 22.08.1978 and revisional order dated 21.09.1979 are liable to be set aside and the same hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 03.01.1978 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. October 14, 2025 Neetu (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-Gram Samaj and Sri Sharad Chand Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No one is present on behalf of private respondent.

3. The case is listed under heading of oldest pending cases for priority hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that an objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) was filed on behalf of petitioners in respect to chak nos. 85 and 86, which was registered as Case No. 2856 of 1977. The petitioner claimed the right on the basis of succession in the Issues were framed before aforementioned chak in question. Consolidation Officer and parties adduced evidence in support of their case. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 03.01.1978 allowed the claim of petitioners under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act and directed to record the name of petitioners over chak nos. 85 and 86 in place of deceased Dilshukh S/o Tika Ram. Against the order of Consolidation Officer one appeal was filed by Beni Ram S/o Jorawar Singh , which was registered as appeal no. 26 and another appeal was filed by Gram Samaj, which was registered as appeal no. 31. Both the aforementioned appeals were clubbed and heard together. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 22.8.1978 allowed the appeal in part and directed for vesting the chak no. 85 in Gaon Sabha, but the order of 2 <Case Number> Consolidation Officer in respect to chak no. 86 was maintained. The petitioners filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as revision no. 479. The aforementioned revision was heard by Joint Director of Consolidation and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.1979. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for following reliefs:- "(a) A writ of certiorari quashing the judgment of Joint Director Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation; (b) A writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 to maintain the judgment of the Consolidation Officer; (c) Any other writ, order direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (d) Award costs of the petition."

5. The aforementioned writ petition was admitted on 13.11.1979 and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed by this Court. In pursuance of the order of this Court parties have exchanged their pleadings.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have claimed the right on the basis of succession being son of Karan. He further submitted that Family Pedigree is mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer, which demonstrates that in absence of sons, daughter and widow of Dil Sukh petitioners have rightly been ordered to be recorded in place of Dil Sukh. He next submitted that proper issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer and parties had adduced evidence, as such Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioners. He submitted that in appeal filed by one stranger Beni Ram as well as Gram Samaj, the order passed by Consolidation Officer has been illegally set aside on the ground that Dil Sukh had died leaving behind no legal heir without considering the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in proper manner. He further submitted that no claim was set up by Gram Sabha before the Consolidation Officer, as such the appeal filed by Gram Samaj cannot be entertained. He next submitted that provisions of Section 175 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act has been rightly taken into consideration by Consolidation Officer, while allowing the claim of the petitioner under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case of petitioners as set up in revision. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by revisional Court and appellate Court should be set aside and order of Consolidation Officer should be maintained.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. They further submitted that proper finding has been recorded by the appellate Court 3 <Case Number> and revisional Court, while rejecting the claim of petitioner in respect to chak no. 85. They next submitted that provisions contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act will not be applicable in the instant matter, as such no interference is required and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act initiated by petitioner on the basis of succession in respect to chak nos. 85 and 86 was allowed by Consolidation Officer, but in appeal the chak no. 85 was ordered to be vested in Gaon Sabha. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the Family Pedigree will be relevant for perusal, which is as under:- गोपी चेती झम्मन करन िሺ(cid:16)ह टीकाराम उ्ቛ(cid:22) नेकराम मेधा िሺ(cid:16)ह (cid:16)ालि(cid:25)कराम मिमही (cid:25)ा(cid:25) मि(cid:27)(cid:25) (cid:16)ुख

11. The perusal of the two issues framed by Consolidation Officer will be also relevant, which are as under:- उपरो्ሹ आधार पर मिनम्न मि ा(cid:27) मि!न्(cid:27)ु !नाये गयेः- 1- क्या मि(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:16)ुख मृतक के कानूनी ारिर(cid:16) मिमही(cid:25)ा(cid:25) आमि(cid:27) ा(cid:27)ीगण हैं? 2- क्या मि(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:16)ुख (cid:25)ा ारिर(cid:16) पौ्ቔ हुए हैं और उ(cid:16)की जाय(cid:27)ा(cid:27) !ची ारिर(cid:16) ्ቇाम (cid:16)माज है?

12. The Consolidation Officer considering the Family Pedigree, revenue entry as well as the oral evidence adduced by the parties has recorded finding of fact for recording the name of petitioners on the basis of succession in the place of deceased Dil Sukh. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has maintained the order of Consolidation Officer in 4 <Case Number> respect to chak no. 86, but in respect to the chak no. 85 the order has been passed for vesting the chak no. 85 in Gaon Sabha on the ground that Dil Sukh has died leaving behind no issues. The finding recorded by the appellate Court vesting the chak no. 85 in Gaon Sabha cannot be sustained in view of the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer in the light of the provision contained under Section 175 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

13.The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not been exercised the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with law.

14. Considering the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer as well as the provisions contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the impugned appellate order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 22.08.1978 and revisional order dated 21.09.1979 are liable to be set aside and the same hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 03.01.1978 is hereby affirmed.

15. No order as to costs. October 14, 2025 Neetu (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad