High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Israr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani,Prajjwal Tyagi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned cousnel for respondent No.3/Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act order was passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.07.2010. Against the order dated 16.07.2010 restoration application dated 08.06.2023 was filed on behalf of respondent No.4 for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2010 and restoring the proceeding of reference for fresh disposal of the dispute in accordance with law. Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 allowed the restoration application dated 08.06.2023 filed by respondent No.4 setting aside the order dated 16.07.2010 restored the reference proceeding to its original number to decide the dispute on merit. Hence this Writ petition for the following relief: "i. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 0506/2023 Computerized No.202354096000000506 (State Vs. Bashir and other) under Section 48 (3) of U .P.C.H. Act."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference proceeding was decided in accordance with law in the year 2010 as such time barred restoration application filed by respondent No.4 cannot be entertained and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation . He submitted that after following the due procedure of the law, the order dated 16.07.2010 was passed as such there was no occasion to recall the order passed on 16.07.2010. He submitted that petitioner is in possession of the plot in question, as such the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 should be set aside and earlier order dated 16.07.2010 should be affirmed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Tryagi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that under the impugned order reference proceeding has been restored recording the finding of fact that reference proceeding requires fresh consideration in accordance with law. He submitted that ground has been taken in the restoration application dated 08.06.2023 for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2010 accordingly, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which requires no interference.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act, an order was passed on 16.07.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact that the order dated 16.07.2010 has been set aside on the restoration application of respondent No.4 and the proceeding has been restored for fresh consideration of the dispute on merit.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of relevant finding of fact recorded under the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 will be necessary which is as under: आददश पतक नययययलय उप ससचयलक चकबनदद मणडल सहयरनपपर जनपद सहयरनपपर तहसदल नकप ड वयद ससखयय-0606/2023 कस पययटरदकक त वयद ससखयय-202354006000000506 सरकयर बनयम बशदर आदद असतररत धयरय- 48(3) अहतमयल जददद पररनय रसरजह तहसदल नकप ड सपखवदर पपत अमर धससह दयरय 08.06.2023 अधधदनयम उ०प०जजत कबनदद अधधदनयम, 1953 कज पसतपत दक रयद पपनसरथयपन पयथरनय- पत कय दनसतयरण। गयम लखननतद ददनयक नकल दनणरय दद०-23.12.2024 रकबय 0. 3652 कज पसतपत दकयद रयद पपनसथयपन पयथरनय- सपखवदर धससह दयरय ददनयसक-08.06.2023 ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… … पत पर उभय पकक कक बहस सपननद एवस पतयवलद कद अवलजकन सद दवददत हहआ दक पकक कद मधय बचत कज लदकर दववयद बनय हहआ हह। पपनसथयपन पयथरनय-पत भयदम कद नयद रयटय ससखयय-481 पसतपतकतयर कय कथन हह दक रयटय ससखयय-481 हद० भयदम बचत कद रप मम छजडद रई थद. धजसकद अनपसयर अननतम अदभलदखक कय दनमयरण दकयय रयय और अननतम अदभलदखज मम भद नयद रयटय ससखयय-481 हद० भयदम बचत भयदम रहद हह। भयदम पबनधक सदमदत दयरय ददनयसक-23.07.2011 कद अनतररत नयद रयटय ससखयय-481 जज दकसद भद नययययलय दयरय दनरसत नहह दकयय रयय अथयरत पटय यथयवत कययम हह और पटद पर वद कयदबज हह. इसधलए उनहम पटटद सद पयप भयदम कज यथयवत कययम रखय जययद। पदतपकद इसरयर आदद कय पर चक पददष दकयय रयय हह. कथन हह दक सनदभर मम पयररत आददश सद उनहम रयटय ससखयय-481 कज लदकर इसधलए कजथयवत कययम रखय जययद। चय दववयद हह। दववयद कद दनरसत दकयय जयकर पपनन आददश पयररत दकयद जयनद सद हद दववयद कय दनसतयरण समभव हह। ऐसद नसथदत मम पपनसथयपन पयथरनय- पत सवदकयर दकयद जयनद यजगय हह। पत सवदकयर दकयय जयनय उदचत हह। तदददनपसयर पपनसवदपन पयथरनय- दनसतयरण हदतप आवदश ददनयक 16.07.2010 सदक पकक कद मधय रयटयमजटद सखयय-481 सवदकक दत ददनयसक-01. 08.2011 कय पटय उनहम दकयय रयय, म रकबय 0.1220 म मम 0.3652 आददश उपरजक दववदचनय कद आधयर पर सपखवदर पपत अमर धससह दयरय ददनयसक-08.06.2023 कज पत सवदकयर दकयय जयतय हह तथय आददश ददनयसक- पसतपत दकयय रयय पपनसथयपन पयथरनय- 08.06.2023 दजष पर बहस हदतप पतयवलद ददनयक-26 12.2024 दनरसत कर सनदभर पपनजरदवत दकयय जयतय हह। रपण- कज पदश हजवद। ददनयसक 23 ददसमबर, 2024 ह०अ० 23.12.24 अशजक कप मयर धससह) उप ससचयलक चकबनदद, सहयरनपपर। ( सतयपदतधलदप

8. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded under the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 as quoted above demonstrate that reference proceeding requires fresh consideration of the dispute as such there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 restoring the reference proceeding for fresh consideration of the dispute on merit. The writ petiton is dismissed and respondent 9. No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Israr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani,Prajjwal Tyagi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned cousnel for respondent No.3/Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act order was passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.07.2010. Against the order dated 16.07.2010 restoration application dated 08.06.2023 was filed on behalf of respondent No.4 for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2010 and restoring the proceeding of reference for fresh disposal of the dispute in accordance with law. Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 allowed the restoration application dated 08.06.2023 filed by respondent No.4 setting aside the order dated 16.07.2010 restored the reference proceeding to its original number to decide the dispute on merit. Hence this Writ petition for the following relief: "i. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 0506/2023 Computerized No.202354096000000506 (State Vs. Bashir and other) under Section 48 (3) of U .P.C.H. Act."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference proceeding was decided in accordance with law in the year 2010 as such time barred restoration application filed by respondent No.4 cannot be entertained and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation . He submitted that after following the due procedure of the law, the order dated 16.07.2010 was passed as such there was no occasion to recall the order passed on 16.07.2010. He submitted that petitioner is in possession of the plot in question, as such the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 should be set aside and earlier order dated 16.07.2010 should be affirmed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Tryagi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that under the impugned order reference proceeding has been restored recording the finding of fact that reference proceeding requires fresh consideration in accordance with law. He submitted that ground has been taken in the restoration application dated 08.06.2023 for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2010 accordingly, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which requires no interference.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act, an order was passed on 16.07.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact that the order dated 16.07.2010 has been set aside on the restoration application of respondent No.4 and the proceeding has been restored for fresh consideration of the dispute on merit.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of relevant finding of fact recorded under the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 will be necessary which is as under: आददश पतक नययययलय उप ससचयलक चकबनदद मणडल सहयरनपपर जनपद सहयरनपपर तहसदल नकप ड वयद ससखयय-0606/2023 कस पययटरदकक त वयद ससखयय-202354006000000506 सरकयर बनयम बशदर आदद असतररत धयरय- 48(3) अहतमयल जददद पररनय रसरजह तहसदल नकप ड सपखवदर पपत अमर धससह दयरय 08.06.2023 अधधदनयम उ०प०जजत कबनदद अधधदनयम, 1953 कज पसतपत दक रयद पपनसरथयपन पयथरनय- पत कय दनसतयरण। गयम लखननतद ददनयक नकल दनणरय दद०-23.12.2024 रकबय 0. 3652 कज पसतपत दकयद रयद पपनसथयपन पयथरनय- सपखवदर धससह दयरय ददनयसक-08.06.2023 ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… … पत पर उभय पकक कक बहस सपननद एवस पतयवलद कद अवलजकन सद दवददत हहआ दक पकक कद मधय बचत कज लदकर दववयद बनय हहआ हह। पपनसथयपन पयथरनय-पत भयदम कद नयद रयटय ससखयय-481 पसतपतकतयर कय कथन हह दक रयटय ससखयय-481 हद० भयदम बचत कद रप मम छजडद रई थद. धजसकद अनपसयर अननतम अदभलदखक कय दनमयरण दकयय रयय और अननतम अदभलदखज मम भद नयद रयटय ससखयय-481 हद० भयदम बचत भयदम रहद हह। भयदम पबनधक सदमदत दयरय ददनयसक-23.07.2011 कद अनतररत नयद रयटय ससखयय-481 जज दकसद भद नययययलय दयरय दनरसत नहह दकयय रयय अथयरत पटय यथयवत कययम हह और पटद पर वद कयदबज हह. इसधलए उनहम पटटद सद पयप भयदम कज यथयवत कययम रखय जययद। पदतपकद इसरयर आदद कय पर चक पददष दकयय रयय हह. कथन हह दक सनदभर मम पयररत आददश सद उनहम रयटय ससखयय-481 कज लदकर इसधलए कजथयवत कययम रखय जययद। चय दववयद हह। दववयद कद दनरसत दकयय जयकर पपनन आददश पयररत दकयद जयनद सद हद दववयद कय दनसतयरण समभव हह। ऐसद नसथदत मम पपनसथयपन पयथरनय- पत सवदकयर दकयद जयनद यजगय हह। पत सवदकयर दकयय जयनय उदचत हह। तदददनपसयर पपनसवदपन पयथरनय- दनसतयरण हदतप आवदश ददनयक 16.07.2010 सदक पकक कद मधय रयटयमजटद सखयय-481 सवदकक दत ददनयसक-01. 08.2011 कय पटय उनहम दकयय रयय, म रकबय 0.1220 म मम 0.3652 आददश उपरजक दववदचनय कद आधयर पर सपखवदर पपत अमर धससह दयरय ददनयसक-08.06.2023 कज पत सवदकयर दकयय जयतय हह तथय आददश ददनयसक- पसतपत दकयय रयय पपनसथयपन पयथरनय- 08.06.2023 दजष पर बहस हदतप पतयवलद ददनयक-26 12.2024 दनरसत कर सनदभर पपनजरदवत दकयय जयतय हह। रपण- कज पदश हजवद। ददनयसक 23 ददसमबर, 2024 ह०अ० 23.12.24 अशजक कप मयर धससह) उप ससचयलक चकबनदद, सहयरनपपर। ( सतयपदतधलदप

8. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded under the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 as quoted above demonstrate that reference proceeding requires fresh consideration of the dispute as such there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 restoring the reference proceeding for fresh consideration of the dispute on merit. The writ petiton is dismissed and respondent 9. No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the proceeding under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad