High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. In view of the order passed in Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.4 of 2022 along with Substitution Application No.5 of 2022, the instant application is rejected. Order on Writ Petition

Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioners, namely, Shyama was chak holder no.290 and his original plots were 191, 216/1, 216/2, 216/3, 216/4, 220, 411, 434, 460, 508 and 466. The petitioners’ father was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak was proposed on plot nos. 188/2M, 189M, 190M, 215M, 216/1, 216/2, 216/3, 221; 2nd chak on plot nos. 506M, 507M, 508M, 575, 530M and 3rd chak on 302M, etc. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners’ father filed chak objection, claiming chak in lieu of plot nos. 430, 431, 432, 438 and 451 which have been proposed to him in arbitrary manner as well as prayed for allotment of chak on his original plot no.460. The Consolidation Officer rejected his objection, accordingly, two appears were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, one appeal was filed by petitioners’ father Shyama and another appeal was filed by respondent no.4/Om Prakash. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 28.2.1989 allowed the appeal of respondent no.4 fully but appeal of petitioners’ father was allowed in part, directing to reduce the valuation of plot nos. 506 and 507 to 50 paisa from 70 paisa with certain other changes. Against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 28.2.1989, petitioners’ father filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. 2 Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation praying that his chak allotted on plot nos. 506 and 507 are far away from his home and respondent no.4 is also tenure holder of ½ share of plot nos. 506M and 507, as such, respondent no.4 should also be allotted chak on plot nos. 506M and 507. Prayer has also been made that plot nos. 216 and 221 are original holding of petitioners’ father and source of irrigation is also situated in plot nos. 216 and 221, as such, petitioners are entitled for chak on plot nos. 216 and 221 according to their share. Five more revisions were filed which were clubbed and heard along with petitioners’ revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.11.1989 partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioners’ father, hence, this writ petition for the following relief:- “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated

28.11.1989 (Annexure IV to the writ petition).”

3. This Court has admitted the writ petition on 26.3.1990 and stayed the operation of the impugned revisional order dated

28.11.1989. In pursuance of the order dated 26.3.1990, affidavits are exchanged between the parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally decided the revision filed by the petitioners’ father, without considering the fact that petitioners’ source of irrigation is situated in plot no.216. He further submitted that plot nos. 216 and 221 are very big plots, as such, petitioners should be allotted total area 3 on plot nos. 216 & 221. He submitted that impugned revisional order should be set aside and petitioners should be allotted chak on plot nos. 216 and 221 as well as other demand made on behalf of the petitioners before the consolidation authorities should also be satisfied.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that writ petition was filed on behalf of the dead person, as such, it cannot be entertained. He submitted that consolidation authorities have rightly decided the chak dispute under the impugned order. He further submitted that both the parties have been rightly adjusted over their plots according to their share, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He submitted that it is not possible under the U.P. C.H. Act to allot each and every original plot to the tenure holder. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that chak objection filed by the petitioners’ father was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer but in chak appeal filed by petitioners’ father as well as respondent no.4, chak of both the parties were adjusted. There is also no dispute about the fact that in chak revision filed by petitioners’ father along with other revisions, chak of the petitioners and respondent no.4 was further adjusted.

8. The perusal of C.H. Form 23 of the petitioners demonstrates that petitioners have been proposed 3 chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer including the original plots, 4 i.e. 216 and 221 but petitioners’ father, being not satisfied, filed chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision. The perusal of the appellate order dated 28.2.1989 demonstrate that the chak of the petitioners and respondent no.4 have been adjusted on their original plots according to their share in the process of rectangulation of their chak as far as possible which is proper compliance of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act. The revision filed by the petitioners’ father along with other revisions were decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.11.1989, taking out plot nos. 221/1, 216, 216/3, 431M, 430M but petitioners’ father, not being satisfied from the revisional order also, filed the instant petition wherein this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

9. Considering the different stage of consolidation operation with respect to allotment of chak to petitioners and respondent no.4, the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is most appropriate as Settlement Officer of Consolidation has taken into consideration the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation appears to be most proper with respect to allotment of chak to the petitioners and respondent no.4, hence, the impugned revisional order dated

28.11.1989 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation/respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 5

11. The writ petition stands allowed and the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is hereby maintained.

12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 6 CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioners, namely, Shyama was chak holder no.290 and his original plots were 191, 216/1, 216/2, 216/3, 216/4, 220, 411, 434, 460, 508 and 466. The petitioners’ father was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak was proposed on plot nos. 188/2M, 189M, 190M, 215M, 216/1, 216/2, 216/3, 221; 2nd chak on plot nos. 506M, 507M, 508M, 575, 530M and 3rd chak on 302M, etc. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioners’ father filed chak objection, claiming chak in lieu of plot nos. 430, 431, 432, 438 and 451 which have been proposed to him in arbitrary manner as well as prayed for allotment of chak on his original plot no.460. The Consolidation Officer rejected his objection, accordingly, two appears were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, one appeal was filed by petitioners’ father Shyama and another appeal was filed by respondent no.4/Om Prakash. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 28.2.1989 allowed the appeal of respondent no.4 fully but appeal of petitioners’ father was allowed in part, directing to reduce the valuation of plot nos. 506 and 507 to 50 paisa from 70 paisa with certain other changes. Against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 28.2.1989, petitioners’ father filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. 2 Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation praying that his chak allotted on plot nos. 506 and 507 are far away from his home and respondent no.4 is also tenure holder of ½ share of plot nos. 506M and 507, as such, respondent no.4 should also be allotted chak on plot nos. 506M and 507. Prayer has also been made that plot nos. 216 and 221 are original holding of petitioners’ father and source of irrigation is also situated in plot nos. 216 and 221, as such, petitioners are entitled for chak on plot nos. 216 and 221 according to their share. Five more revisions were filed which were clubbed and heard along with petitioners’ revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.11.1989 partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioners’ father, hence, this writ petition for the following relief:- “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated

28.11.1989 (Annexure IV to the writ petition).”

3. This Court has admitted the writ petition on 26.3.1990 and stayed the operation of the impugned revisional order dated

28.11.1989. In pursuance of the order dated 26.3.1990, affidavits are exchanged between the parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally decided the revision filed by the petitioners’ father, without considering the fact that petitioners’ source of irrigation is situated in plot no.216. He further submitted that plot nos. 216 and 221 are very big plots, as such, petitioners should be allotted total area 3 on plot nos. 216 & 221. He submitted that impugned revisional order should be set aside and petitioners should be allotted chak on plot nos. 216 and 221 as well as other demand made on behalf of the petitioners before the consolidation authorities should also be satisfied.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that writ petition was filed on behalf of the dead person, as such, it cannot be entertained. He submitted that consolidation authorities have rightly decided the chak dispute under the impugned order. He further submitted that both the parties have been rightly adjusted over their plots according to their share, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He submitted that it is not possible under the U.P. C.H. Act to allot each and every original plot to the tenure holder. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that chak objection filed by the petitioners’ father was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer but in chak appeal filed by petitioners’ father as well as respondent no.4, chak of both the parties were adjusted. There is also no dispute about the fact that in chak revision filed by petitioners’ father along with other revisions, chak of the petitioners and respondent no.4 was further adjusted.

8. The perusal of C.H. Form 23 of the petitioners demonstrates that petitioners have been proposed 3 chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer including the original plots, 4 i.e. 216 and 221 but petitioners’ father, being not satisfied, filed chak objection, chak appeal and chak revision. The perusal of the appellate order dated 28.2.1989 demonstrate that the chak of the petitioners and respondent no.4 have been adjusted on their original plots according to their share in the process of rectangulation of their chak as far as possible which is proper compliance of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act. The revision filed by the petitioners’ father along with other revisions were decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.11.1989, taking out plot nos. 221/1, 216, 216/3, 431M, 430M but petitioners’ father, not being satisfied from the revisional order also, filed the instant petition wherein this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

9. Considering the different stage of consolidation operation with respect to allotment of chak to petitioners and respondent no.4, the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is most appropriate as Settlement Officer of Consolidation has taken into consideration the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation appears to be most proper with respect to allotment of chak to the petitioners and respondent no.4, hence, the impugned revisional order dated

28.11.1989 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation/respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 5

11. The writ petition stands allowed and the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is hereby maintained.

12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 6 CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad