High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mihsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No.88, respondent No.2-Bechan Singh is chak holder No.50, respondent No.3/Ram Lakhan is chak holder No.75 and respondent No.4 /Singh is chak holder No.95. Petitioner's original plots are mentioned in C.H. Form-23 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Petitioner was proposed chak on plot No.134 etc. Plot No.134 originally belong to Darshan Prasad, but no objection was filed by Darshan Prasad for allotment of chak on plot No.134. Chak objection was filed by respondent No.2/Bechan Singh which was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.09.1979. No claim was set-up regarding allotment of plot No.134, which was proposed to petitioner. Against the order of consolidation Officer dated 11.09.1979, appeal under Section 21(2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed which was registered as appeal No.3605 of 1979. In appeal, the prayer was made by respondent No.2/Bechan Singh that he should be allotted the chak on his original plot No.200, the same is situated adjacent to the abadi of Benchan Singh. In appeal petitioner was not impleaded rather Gulab Singh was impleaded. Another appeal was filed by one Keshav which was registered as Appeal No.3576 and appeal filed by Bechan Singh was registered as Appeal No.3605. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.02.1980 allowed both the chak appeal No.s 3576 & 3605. Against the appellate order dated 29.02.1980 revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No.3/Ram Lakahn as revision No.4018 and revision filed by respondent No.2/Bechan was registered as revison No.3819. The aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.05.1983 decided the revisions affecting the chak of the petitioner hence petitioner applied for restoration which has been rejected under impugned order dated 04.08.1986. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: "(A). To issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12th May, 1983 (Annexure II to this petition) read with 4th August, 1986 (Annexure I to this petition). (B). To issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner is entitled under the law."

3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 30.10.1986 and stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 12.05.1983 & 04.08.1986 passed by revisional court. In pursuance of the order of this Court parties have exchanged their affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was proposed chak by Assistant Consolidation officer on plot No.134 etc. which was maintained up to Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. He submitted that no claim was set up regarding plots proposed to the petitioner by any of the respondents. He further submitted that petitioner was not impleaded in appeals and revisions but in the revisional exercise of jurisdiction, petitioner's chak has been disturbed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that petitioner has filed restoration application which has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on misconceived ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's chak proposed to the petitioner cannot be taken away by the revisional court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such the impugned revisional order should be set aside and stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the chak revision filed by private respondents. He submitted that both the parties have been adjusted on their plots, as such writ petition filed by petitioners cannot be entertained.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that chak proposed to petitioner was maintained up to Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner was not impleaded in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioners' chak has been disturbed at the revisional stage.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under: "Section 48. Revision and reference. - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub- section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). [Explanation. -] [(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation (2) - For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. [Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence."

9. Perusal of C.H. Form 23, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition demonstrate that petitioner was proposed chak on plot No.134 etc, which was maintained up to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Stage. Perusal of grounds of appeal further demonstrate that no claim was set up for allotment on chak No.134 which was proposed to petitioner and petitioner was not impleaded in appeals, as such the petitioner 's chak cannot be disturbed by the appellate court. The revisional court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has disturbed the petitioner's chak without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing which is important ingredient of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 12.05.1983 and 4.8.1986 passed by respondent No.1/ Deputy Director of consolidation are liable to be set aside and same hereby set aside.

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 :- 14.5.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mihsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No.88, respondent No.2-Bechan Singh is chak holder No.50, respondent No.3/Ram Lakhan is chak holder No.75 and respondent No.4 /Singh is chak holder No.95. Petitioner's original plots are mentioned in C.H. Form-23 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Petitioner was proposed chak on plot No.134 etc. Plot No.134 originally belong to Darshan Prasad, but no objection was filed by Darshan Prasad for allotment of chak on plot No.134. Chak objection was filed by respondent No.2/Bechan Singh which was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.09.1979. No claim was set-up regarding allotment of plot No.134, which was proposed to petitioner. Against the order of consolidation Officer dated 11.09.1979, appeal under Section 21(2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed which was registered as appeal No.3605 of 1979. In appeal, the prayer was made by respondent No.2/Bechan Singh that he should be allotted the chak on his original plot No.200, the same is situated adjacent to the abadi of Benchan Singh. In appeal petitioner was not impleaded rather Gulab Singh was impleaded. Another appeal was filed by one Keshav which was registered as Appeal No.3576 and appeal filed by Bechan Singh was registered as Appeal No.3605. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.02.1980 allowed both the chak appeal No.s 3576 & 3605. Against the appellate order dated 29.02.1980 revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No.3/Ram Lakahn as revision No.4018 and revision filed by respondent No.2/Bechan was registered as revison No.3819. The aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.05.1983 decided the revisions affecting the chak of the petitioner hence petitioner applied for restoration which has been rejected under impugned order dated 04.08.1986. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: "(A). To issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12th May, 1983 (Annexure II to this petition) read with 4th August, 1986 (Annexure I to this petition). (B). To issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner is entitled under the law."

3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 30.10.1986 and stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 12.05.1983 & 04.08.1986 passed by revisional court. In pursuance of the order of this Court parties have exchanged their affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was proposed chak by Assistant Consolidation officer on plot No.134 etc. which was maintained up to Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. He submitted that no claim was set up regarding plots proposed to the petitioner by any of the respondents. He further submitted that petitioner was not impleaded in appeals and revisions but in the revisional exercise of jurisdiction, petitioner's chak has been disturbed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that petitioner has filed restoration application which has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on misconceived ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's chak proposed to the petitioner cannot be taken away by the revisional court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such the impugned revisional order should be set aside and stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the chak revision filed by private respondents. He submitted that both the parties have been adjusted on their plots, as such writ petition filed by petitioners cannot be entertained.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that chak proposed to petitioner was maintained up to Settlement Officer of Consolidation stage. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner was not impleaded in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioners' chak has been disturbed at the revisional stage.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under: "Section 48. Revision and reference. - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub- section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). [Explanation. -] [(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation (2) - For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. [Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence."

9. Perusal of C.H. Form 23, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition demonstrate that petitioner was proposed chak on plot No.134 etc, which was maintained up to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Stage. Perusal of grounds of appeal further demonstrate that no claim was set up for allotment on chak No.134 which was proposed to petitioner and petitioner was not impleaded in appeals, as such the petitioner 's chak cannot be disturbed by the appellate court. The revisional court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has disturbed the petitioner's chak without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing which is important ingredient of Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 12.05.1983 and 4.8.1986 passed by respondent No.1/ Deputy Director of consolidation are liable to be set aside and same hereby set aside.

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 :- 14.5.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad