High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.4.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.4 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos.4/1 to 4/6.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.174144 of 2006

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.5.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

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

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.3 of 2021

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.3/1.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.3/1 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos.3/1/1 to 3/1/3.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.2 of 2018

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.3/2.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.3/2 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos.3/2/1 to 3/2/3.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.20746 of 2007

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased respondent no.3.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Notices were issued to the proposed heirs of deceased respondent no.3.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent no.3 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as respondent nos.3/1 & 3/2.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.6 of 2023 along Substitution Application No.7 of 2023

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant applications have been filed in respect of deceased respondent nos.5 & 6 along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

3. The explanation given for the condonation of delay in the affidavit is satisfactory.

4. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent nos.5 & 6 and their legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as respondent nos.5/1 to 5/3 & 6/1 to 6/5.

6. The applications are accordingly, allowed. Order On Writ Petition as well as Civil Misc. Compromise Application Nos.16 of 2025 & 17 of 2025

1. The instant compromise applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners as well as private respondents annexing the terms of compromise to the effect that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the writ petition be allowed maintaining the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in respect to allotment of chak proceeding between petitioners and private respondents.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mr. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for private respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1/ Mushtaq Khan and petitioner no.2/ Fateh Husain are chak holder no.801. Respondent nos.3 to 7 are chak holder no.185, respondent no.13 is chak holder no.559 and respondent no.14 is chak holder no.42. Disputed plots are situated in village- Bara Pargana- Jamania, District- Ghazipur. The land in village- Bara is situated on both the sides of river-Ganga, village- abadi of village- Bara is situated in south of river Ganga. Original plot no.3567 belonging to petitioner nos.1 to 5 is situated on the northern side of river- Ganga. The share of petitioner nos.1 to 5 in the aforesaid plot was 1/2 (3 bigha 9 biswa). Petitioner nos.1 to 5 were proposed two chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak-6 bigha 1 biswa was proposed on original plot nos.3567 on the northern side of river- Ganga and the second chak was proposed at original plot no.1852, 1858, 1859 etc. taking into consideration the largest part of the holding of the petitioners. In the writ petition, petitioners have mentioned 13 plots belonging to petitioner nos.1 to 5, which were situated adjacent to Baksar-Varanasi road. No chak objection was filed against the chak proposed to the petitioners. Since there was no objection and appeal, as such, no order was passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the proposal of the chak made to petitioner nos.1 & 5. Abdul Gafoor Khan, father of respondent nos.2 to 6 filed direct revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") against the order alleged to be passed on 30.5.1975 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No.1600. Petitioners were initially not impleaded in the aforementioned revision. During pendency of the revision, father of respondent nos.2 to 6 filed an application dated 1.3.1982 to implead petitioner no.5 as one of the party in revision. Another application filed on behalf of the revisionist in the aforementioned revision for certain amendments. On behalf of the petitioner no.2, an application dated

24.3.1982 for impleadment was filed and Consolidation Officer allowed the application for impleadment of petitioner no.2 in the revision. Petitioner no.3 also filed an application dated 5.4.1982 for impleadment which was also allowed. Father of respondent nos.3 to 6 also filed two impleadment applications in the aforementioned revision. Respondent no.13/ Zannat Husain also filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order or Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 3.3.1982. Deputy Director of Consolidation clubbed the revisions and decided the same by common order dated 21.7.1982 affecting the petitioners' chak. Against the order dated 21.7.1982 restoration applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 1.11.1983 dismissed the restoration application. Hence this writ petitoin for the following relief: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.7.1982 and order dated 1.11.1983 (Annexure Nos.4 & 11 respectively in the writ petition)"

4. This Court has admitted the instant petition on 14.12.1983.

5. During pendency of the petition, parties to the writ petition have entered into compromise annexing the terms of compromise stating that the parties are in possession of their chak of Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage and they have raised construction over their respective plot, as such, stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. The prayer made in the writ petition is also for setting aside the revisional order dated

21.7.1982 and 1.11.1983 meaning thereby for restoring the stage of Settlement officer of Consolidation.

6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances in place of sending the compromise application for verification, the writ petition can be allowed on merit taking into consideration the compromise entered into between the parties for maintaining the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation between the parties. The perusal of the record also demonstrates that the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer which was maintained up to Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was just and proper.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case on merit as well as the terms of compromise entertained into between the parties, the impugned order dated 21.7.1982 and 1.11.1983 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation in the allotment of chak proceeding are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

8. The writ petition is allowed and the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is hereby maintained. The compromise applications are also accordingly disposed of.

9. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 26.5.2025/Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.4.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.4 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos.4/1 to 4/6.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.174144 of 2006

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.5.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

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

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.3 of 2021

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.3/1.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.3/1 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos.3/1/1 to 3/1/3.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.2 of 2018

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.3/2.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Vakalatnama of proposed heirs is annexed along with the application.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.3/2 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner nos.3/2/1 to 3/2/3.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.20746 of 2007

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased respondent no.3.

3. The application is within limitation.

4. Notices were issued to the proposed heirs of deceased respondent no.3.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent no.3 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as respondent nos.3/1 & 3/2.

6. The application is accordingly, allowed. In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.6 of 2023 along Substitution Application No.7 of 2023

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioner and Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mohd. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant applications have been filed in respect of deceased respondent nos.5 & 6 along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

3. The explanation given for the condonation of delay in the affidavit is satisfactory.

4. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of respondent nos.5 & 6 and their legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the application be substituted as respondent nos.5/1 to 5/3 & 6/1 to 6/5.

6. The applications are accordingly, allowed. Order On Writ Petition as well as Civil Misc. Compromise Application Nos.16 of 2025 & 17 of 2025

1. The instant compromise applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners as well as private respondents annexing the terms of compromise to the effect that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the writ petition be allowed maintaining the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in respect to allotment of chak proceeding between petitioners and private respondents.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Krishna Tripathi & Mr. Afroz Khan, learned counsel for private respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1/ Mushtaq Khan and petitioner no.2/ Fateh Husain are chak holder no.801. Respondent nos.3 to 7 are chak holder no.185, respondent no.13 is chak holder no.559 and respondent no.14 is chak holder no.42. Disputed plots are situated in village- Bara Pargana- Jamania, District- Ghazipur. The land in village- Bara is situated on both the sides of river-Ganga, village- abadi of village- Bara is situated in south of river Ganga. Original plot no.3567 belonging to petitioner nos.1 to 5 is situated on the northern side of river- Ganga. The share of petitioner nos.1 to 5 in the aforesaid plot was 1/2 (3 bigha 9 biswa). Petitioner nos.1 to 5 were proposed two chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak-6 bigha 1 biswa was proposed on original plot nos.3567 on the northern side of river- Ganga and the second chak was proposed at original plot no.1852, 1858, 1859 etc. taking into consideration the largest part of the holding of the petitioners. In the writ petition, petitioners have mentioned 13 plots belonging to petitioner nos.1 to 5, which were situated adjacent to Baksar-Varanasi road. No chak objection was filed against the chak proposed to the petitioners. Since there was no objection and appeal, as such, no order was passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the proposal of the chak made to petitioner nos.1 & 5. Abdul Gafoor Khan, father of respondent nos.2 to 6 filed direct revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") against the order alleged to be passed on 30.5.1975 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No.1600. Petitioners were initially not impleaded in the aforementioned revision. During pendency of the revision, father of respondent nos.2 to 6 filed an application dated 1.3.1982 to implead petitioner no.5 as one of the party in revision. Another application filed on behalf of the revisionist in the aforementioned revision for certain amendments. On behalf of the petitioner no.2, an application dated

24.3.1982 for impleadment was filed and Consolidation Officer allowed the application for impleadment of petitioner no.2 in the revision. Petitioner no.3 also filed an application dated 5.4.1982 for impleadment which was also allowed. Father of respondent nos.3 to 6 also filed two impleadment applications in the aforementioned revision. Respondent no.13/ Zannat Husain also filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order or Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 3.3.1982. Deputy Director of Consolidation clubbed the revisions and decided the same by common order dated 21.7.1982 affecting the petitioners' chak. Against the order dated 21.7.1982 restoration applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 1.11.1983 dismissed the restoration application. Hence this writ petitoin for the following relief: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.7.1982 and order dated 1.11.1983 (Annexure Nos.4 & 11 respectively in the writ petition)"

4. This Court has admitted the instant petition on 14.12.1983.

5. During pendency of the petition, parties to the writ petition have entered into compromise annexing the terms of compromise stating that the parties are in possession of their chak of Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage and they have raised construction over their respective plot, as such, stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. The prayer made in the writ petition is also for setting aside the revisional order dated

21.7.1982 and 1.11.1983 meaning thereby for restoring the stage of Settlement officer of Consolidation.

6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances in place of sending the compromise application for verification, the writ petition can be allowed on merit taking into consideration the compromise entered into between the parties for maintaining the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation between the parties. The perusal of the record also demonstrates that the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer which was maintained up to Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was just and proper.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case on merit as well as the terms of compromise entertained into between the parties, the impugned order dated 21.7.1982 and 1.11.1983 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation in the allotment of chak proceeding are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

8. The writ petition is allowed and the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is hereby maintained. The compromise applications are also accordingly disposed of.

9. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 26.5.2025/Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad