High Court · 2025

1. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and performa respondent no. 10-Dashrath are chak holder no. 828 and petitioner no. 5-Hari Ram is chak holder no. 920-A. Respondent no. 9-Ram Murti is chak holder no. 508. Respondent no. 4-Raj Kumari is Chak holder no. 71. Petitioners along with performa respondent no. 10 was proposed two chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak was proposed on plot nos. 930 and 931 and second chak was proposed on plot nos. 1018 and 1019. Petitioner no. 5 was proposed two chaks. First chak was proposed on plot nos. 867, 929, 930 and Second chak was proposed on plot nos. 1022/1, 1022/3, 1022/1776, 1030/2, 1030/1. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, a chak objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners' father under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act for allotment of chak on plot no. 1019 etc. Plot no. 1019 is a big plot and 20 decimal area had been declared as 'Abadi'. On this portion of plot no. 1019 the petitioners have got their residential house, pumping-set, Pucca Nali, Baithaka and Dalan etc. Consolidation Officer decided the aforementioned chak objection vide order dated 21.12.1993. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 20.05.1994. Certain other appeals were also filed against the order of Consolidation Officer. In the appeal filed by other tenure holder, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak vide order dated 30.05.1994 by which plot nos. 1017, 1012, 1019 have been taken away from the chak of the petitioners and plot no. 1003m has been allotted to petitioners. Against the appellate order dated 30.05.1994, petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.03.1999 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Hence this writ petition for following reliefs:- "a) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.03.1999 and 30.05.1994 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. b) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status quo on the sport. c) issue such other and further orders which may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the instant case; so that justice be done. d) award cost of the petition throughout the petitioners as against the respondents."

2. This court entertained the matter on 09.07.1999 and stayed the operation of the order dated 30.05.1994 and 31.03.1999. In pursuance of the order dated 09.07.1999 notices were issued to the private respondents, but nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents.

3. The writ petition is pending before this Court for last more than 24 years, as such there is no option except to decide the writ petition on merit on the basis of averment made in the writ petition.

4. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed in the chak allotment proceeding. He further submitted that it is not necessary that every tenure holder should be given their original plots. He next submitted that both the parties have been adjusted under the impugned order on their original plots as far as possible, as such no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the facts that plot no. 1019 is the original plot of the petitioners and petitioners have been proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. There is also no dispute about the facts that chak objection and chak appeal filed by the petitioners claiming further area on plot no. 1019 was refused by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 20.05.1994, but in separate chak appeal filed by private respondent the area which was allotted to the petitioner on plot no. 1019 has been taken away and the order of appellate Court has been maintained in revision.

7. Perusal of C.H. Form-23 of the petitioners as well as private respondents, which are annexed as annexure nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition demonstrate that plot no. 1019/1, 1019/2 are the original plot of petitioners and the proposal was made to the petitioners on their original plot no. 1019 according to their share as far as possible.

8. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the chak appeal filed by private respondent has taken out the area of plot no. 1019 from the chak of petitioner without considering the hardship of the petitioners in proper manner, as such order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.05.1994 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The revisional Court has also failed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction considering the case of the petitioner as set up in the chak revision.

9. No counter affidavit has been filed for last more than 25 years, as such instant writ petition is decided on the basis averment made in the writ petition.

10. The records demonstrates that petitioners are continuing in possession of chak of the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation by which appeal was decided vide order dated 20.05.1994, as such the impugned appellate order dated 30.05.1994 and revisional order dated 31.03.1999 are liable to be set aside and same are hereby set aside.

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

12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and performa respondent no. 10-Dashrath are chak holder no. 828 and petitioner no. 5-Hari Ram is chak holder no. 920-A. Respondent no. 9-Ram Murti is chak holder no. 508. Respondent no. 4-Raj Kumari is Chak holder no. 71. Petitioners along with performa respondent no. 10 was proposed two chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak was proposed on plot nos. 930 and 931 and second chak was proposed on plot nos. 1018 and 1019. Petitioner no. 5 was proposed two chaks. First chak was proposed on plot nos. 867, 929, 930 and Second chak was proposed on plot nos. 1022/1, 1022/3, 1022/1776, 1030/2, 1030/1. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, a chak objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners' father under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act for allotment of chak on plot no. 1019 etc. Plot no. 1019 is a big plot and 20 decimal area had been declared as 'Abadi'. On this portion of plot no. 1019 the petitioners have got their residential house, pumping-set, Pucca Nali, Baithaka and Dalan etc. Consolidation Officer decided the aforementioned chak objection vide order dated 21.12.1993. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 20.05.1994. Certain other appeals were also filed against the order of Consolidation Officer. In the appeal filed by other tenure holder, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak vide order dated 30.05.1994 by which plot nos. 1017, 1012, 1019 have been taken away from the chak of the petitioners and plot no. 1003m has been allotted to petitioners. Against the appellate order dated 30.05.1994, petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.03.1999 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Hence this writ petition for following reliefs:- "a) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.03.1999 and 30.05.1994 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. b) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status quo on the sport. c) issue such other and further orders which may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the instant case; so that justice be done. d) award cost of the petition throughout the petitioners as against the respondents."

2. This court entertained the matter on 09.07.1999 and stayed the operation of the order dated 30.05.1994 and 31.03.1999. In pursuance of the order dated 09.07.1999 notices were issued to the private respondents, but nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents.

3. The writ petition is pending before this Court for last more than 24 years, as such there is no option except to decide the writ petition on merit on the basis of averment made in the writ petition.

4. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed in the chak allotment proceeding. He further submitted that it is not necessary that every tenure holder should be given their original plots. He next submitted that both the parties have been adjusted under the impugned order on their original plots as far as possible, as such no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the facts that plot no. 1019 is the original plot of the petitioners and petitioners have been proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. There is also no dispute about the facts that chak objection and chak appeal filed by the petitioners claiming further area on plot no. 1019 was refused by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 20.05.1994, but in separate chak appeal filed by private respondent the area which was allotted to the petitioner on plot no. 1019 has been taken away and the order of appellate Court has been maintained in revision.

7. Perusal of C.H. Form-23 of the petitioners as well as private respondents, which are annexed as annexure nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition demonstrate that plot no. 1019/1, 1019/2 are the original plot of petitioners and the proposal was made to the petitioners on their original plot no. 1019 according to their share as far as possible.

8. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the chak appeal filed by private respondent has taken out the area of plot no. 1019 from the chak of petitioner without considering the hardship of the petitioners in proper manner, as such order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.05.1994 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The revisional Court has also failed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction considering the case of the petitioner as set up in the chak revision.

9. No counter affidavit has been filed for last more than 25 years, as such instant writ petition is decided on the basis averment made in the writ petition.

10. The records demonstrates that petitioners are continuing in possession of chak of the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation by which appeal was decided vide order dated 20.05.1994, as such the impugned appellate order dated 30.05.1994 and revisional order dated 31.03.1999 are liable to be set aside and same are hereby set aside.

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

12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad