✦ High Court of India · 10 Apr 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Apr 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

10 Apr 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

2,314 words

Acts & Sections

Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953

1. Heard Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite parties and Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot of Khata No. 101 situated in Village Ramgarh, Pargana Majhwar, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi was recorded in the name of contesting respondents in the basic year of consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry of the Khata No. 101 an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Badri and others claiming right of co-tenancy. The aforementioned objection was registered as Case No. 96. The issues were framed and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.09.1980 decided the aforementioned objection in respect to Khata No. 101 directing to record the name of Badri and others as co-tenure holder of the plot in question. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated

30.09.1980 appeal, under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, it was registered as Appeal No. 2952/41 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.1988. Against the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Matadin and others, which was registered as Revision No. 501/259. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi setting aside the order of Consolidation officer dated 30.09.1980 as well as Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 09.03.1988 and the basic year entry of the Khata No. 101 was maintained. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "(A) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.11.1995. (B) To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and (C) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

3. It is also material to mention that in respect to plot of Khata No. 22 situated in village Ramgarh, Pargana Majhwar, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Badri claiming the right of co- tenancy, which was registered as Case No. 971 and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.06.1980 rejected the objection of Badri and others. The order dated 24.06.1980 in respect to plots of Khata No. 22 has already attained finality. One suit under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by Badri claiming right of co-tenancy was initially decreed exparte, but on the application of the contesting respondents, the exparte decree was set aside and the Suit was ultimately abated due to Consolidation operation. 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that objection against the basic year entry under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner was rightly allowed by the Consolidation Officer, after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He further submitted that title appeal filed by Vishwanath and Others (vendees) and the branch of Panaru son of Anoop was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation in proper manner. He further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the title revision filed by the Vishwanath and Others, setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to record the name of Vishwanath and Others in exclusive manner is wholly witihout jurisdiction. He also submitted that in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by Badri and Others, both the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of compromise, the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed. He submitted that later on the recall application was filed and the decree passed under Section 229-B was set aside but the compromise which has taken place in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be ignored by the consolidation court inspite of the fact that the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was later on abated due to consolidation operation. He also submitted that dismissal of the title objection in respect to another khata no.22 situated in the same village will not come in the way of the petitioners to establish their claim in respect to another khata in which the basis of claim is different to the claim set up in respect to khata no.22. He further submitted that the sale deed was executed by Panaru 3 and Others in favour of Vishwanath and Others during consolidation operation, as such, the sale deed cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that the date of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act as mentioned in the writ petition as well as the supplementary affidavit are correct but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held otherwise that the sale deed was executed prior to the notification of the village under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He further placed Annexure No.3 to the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents in order to demonstrate that the plot in question was sirdari plot, as such, the sale deed cannot be executed regarding the same by Panaru in favour of Vishwanath and Others. He also submitted that the plot in question was acquired by common ancestor of the family, as such, every branch will be entitled to be recorded over the plot in question rather Anoop only. He submitted that the Consolidation Officer has rightly directed to record the name of the petitioners (Badri and Others) as co-tenure holders but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in directing to record the name of Vishwanath and Others in exclusive manner. He submitted that the Consolidation Officer has held that Vishwanath and Others can claim 1/5th share of Anoop, if any, rather the exclusive share of all the five branches on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed by Panaru in favour of Vishwanath and Others. He submitted that the impugned revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. 4

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, Panaru and others were recorded in the revenue record. He further submitted that Panaru and others have executed a sale deed in favour of Vishwanath and others, who are in possession of the land on the basis of sale deed executed by Panaru and others. He next submitted that claim of co-tenancy set up by Badri was rejected by another order of Consolidation Officer in respect to plot of Khata No. 22. He submitted that Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim of co-tenancy in respect of Plot of Khata No. 101 on the ground of exparte decree passed in suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act without considering the facts that the exparte decree passed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was set aside and the Suit was ultimately abated due to consolidation operation. He placed the orders passed in the Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the order passed by Consolidation Officer in respect to plot of Khata No. 22. He further placed Family Pedigree of the parties as mentioned in the order of Consolidation authorities as well as the issues framed and the evidence adduced by the parties. He submitted that the Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation recording finding of fact that claim of co-tenancy set up by Badri and others cannot be allowed on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. He further submitted that so far as execution of sale deed by Panaru in favour of Vishwanath is concerned, the sale deed was executed before issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act, as such there was no necessity for permission from Settlement Officer Consolidation before execution of sale deed. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

7. There is no dispute about the facts that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, the plot of Khata No. 101 was recorded in the name of Panaru and others. There is also no dispute about the facts that title objection against the basic 5 year entry was filed by Badri and others claiming the right of co-tenancy and Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim of co-tenancy, which was maintained in appeal by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by Matadeen and others against the order of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer was allowed setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the facts that separate objection filed in respect to Plot of Khata No. 22 by Badri and others was dismissed by Consolidation Officer by separate order dated 24.06.1980, which was not challenged in appeal or revision. There is also no dispute about the facts that Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z. & L.R. Act filed by Badri and others for co-tenancy right was ultimately abated due to consolidation operation.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the issues framed before Consolidation Officer will be relevant for perusal, which are as under:- “ न्यायालय ्ቦ脨敠 के ०प脨敠० िሺ(cid:12)勎㜯 चकबन्द脨敠 अधि(cid:19)कार脨敠 अቌኌन्(cid:22)㜬㜽 अभि(cid:25)ले⒭ኄ चकिकया - चन्दौल脨敠, वाराण(cid:12)脨敠 पूव वाद (cid:12)ंख्या 96 अन्(cid:22)्ቇ$(cid:22) (cid:19)ारा 9 क 2 जो(cid:22) चकबन्द脨敠 अधि(cid:19)कि’य㜬㜽। बाब(cid:22) ्ቇा㜬㜽 रा㜬㜽्ቇ錝滫 पर्ቇ’ा 㜬㜽झवार (cid:22)勎㜯(cid:12)脨敠ल चन्दौल脨敠 जिजला- वाराण(cid:12)脨敠। ब्ቖ脨敠 ब’ा㜬㜽 किव्ቫ’ाथ क्या आराज脨敠 कि’जा뢖쬂 पैदा कर’ा 㜬㜽ूरिर(cid:12)ा’ फर脨敠कै ’ क匲岋勎㜯ै। वाद脨敠 ्ቚधि(cid:22)वाद脨敠 के 1- (cid:12)ाथ (cid:12)勎㜯 ⒭ኄा(cid:22)ेदार 勎㜯ै यकिद 勎㜯ो (cid:22)ो उ’का अं╈│ क्या 勎㜯ै। क्या बै’ा㜬㜽ा किद’ांक 30-10-73 2- ’ाजायज 勎㜯ै। 뢖쬂० किब’ा इजाज(cid:22) ब०अ०च० 勎㜯ै। इ(cid:12)लिलये क्या ’ाबालिल्ቇ (cid:12)脨敠(cid:22)ारा㜬㜽, रा(cid:19)ेश्या㜬㜽, (cid:25)ा뢖쬂रा㜬㜽, 3- लिलये जिजला जज (cid:12)े इजाज(cid:22) ल脨敠 ्ቇ뢖쬂 थ脨敠। आकिद के कि勎㜯स्(cid:12)े को वय कर’े के 4- क्या बै’ा㜬㜽ा किद’ांक 30-10-73 फज 勎㜯ै। 6 9 The family pedigree of the parties will also be relevant, which are as under:- ब्ቖ脨敠 | । अ’ूप | | | | | । स्वरूप । | । | | कु (cid:12) ’ा㜬㜽ा अयोध्या _________________________|_______________________ | । (cid:25)्ቇवा’ ज्ቇरूप दु⒭ኄ脨敠 | | | | । | ---------------- | रा㜬㜽 भि╈│व भि╈│व | (cid:19)’脨敠 ’ाथ (cid:19)’脨敠 | | | | | --------------------------------------------- | | | | 㜬㜽ुरा勎㜯ू| (cid:25)ग््ቇल (cid:12)रजू का╈│脨敠 | | | | | | ______________|___ |____________ | | | | | | ’न्दू ब्ሴ’ बैजू बैज | | | ’ाथ | | | | | | | | कि㜬㜽्ሿू ्ቇोव(cid:19)$’ | | _______________|____ | | | | | बेच뢖쬂 (cid:12)ेच뢖쬂 | | | ___________________________|____________________ | | | | | | | | प’ारू रा㜬㜽चन्दर (cid:25)ोला (cid:12)脨敠(cid:22)ारा㜬㜽 रा(cid:19)ेश्या㜬㜽 (cid:25)ोला रा㜬㜽 जि(cid:12)या रा㜬㜽 रा㜬㜽दुलारे ल्ቌ’ | | (cid:12)ेव(cid:19)$’ वा(cid:12)देव 勎㜯० ब्ቖ脨敠

10. The Consolidation Officer has allowed the claim of co- tenancy on the ground that Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by Badri Prasad regarding co-tenancy was decreed although, much before the passing of the order of Consolidation Officer, the exparte decree passed in Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was recalled and the Suit was ultimately abated due to consolidation operation, as such the order passed by Consolidation Officer cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7

11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act has considered the entire aspect of the matter i.e. regarding the abatement of the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act due to consolidation operation, the rejection of the claim for co-tenancy set up by Badri in respect to another Khata No. 22 in the same village as well as the other evidence adduced before the Trial Court, which demonstrate that plot in question was self acquisition of Anoop. It is also material to mention that finding has also been recorded regarding the sale deed executed in favour of Vishwanath and others that village in question i.e. Village Ramgarh was notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 22.09.1977, while the sale deed was executed on 16.10.1973, as such there was no illegality in the execution of sale deed and no permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation was required at the relevant point of time.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.1995 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Neetu/PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 8

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

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.1995 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Neetu/PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 8

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953