Vijay Narain And Others v. The District D.D.C. Sant Ravi Das Nagar

1. Heard Mr. Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhadohi and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to the plots as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the instant petition. According to the petitioners, the plots in dispute were granted on lease (patta) to the petitioners by erstwhile Raja of Banaras Estate on 6.6.1944 and the petitioners were accordingly in possession over the same. The consolidation operation started in the village in question in the year 1964. Petitioners filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") for expunging the basic year entry of the ushar land in respect to the plots in question and further the petitioners be declared sirdar/bhoomidhar of the plots in question on the basis of patta executed by Banaras Estate on 6.6.1944. Gram Sabha filed objection to the claim of the petitioners, stating that plots in question are public utility plots, as such, petitioners cannot be declared sirdar/bhoomidhar of the same. The Consolidation officer, Gyapur, 2 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 Varanasi vide judgment/order dated 1.5.1974 allowed the objection of the petitioners and declared them sirdar/bhoomidhar of the plots in question. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.5.1974, Gram Sabha as well as one Sita Ram have filed appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal Nos. 1660 & 1661. The aforementioned appeals were heard together and the same were dismissed by a common order dated 19.7.1977. Against the appellate order dated 19.7.1977, Sita Ram and Others filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.80. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.2.1980 dismissed the revision. Against the order dated filed a restoration application dated 20.1.1980, Gram Sabha 27.2.1980 which was rejected on 31.10.1980. In pursuance of the order of the Consolidation Officer, which has been maintained in appeal and revision, reference proceeding under Section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act was initiated by the petitioners which was registered as Reference No.251. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.10.1983 allowed the Reference Case No.251. Proceeding under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Rules") was initiated by the petitioners, accordingly, an order dated 21.3.1984 was passed by the Consolidation Officer for compliance of the order dated 18.10.1983. Against the orders dated 18.10.1983 and 21.3.1984, a restoration application was filed by one Jaishri, son of Beni, stating that the impugned orders are ex parte. The petitioners filed their objections to the aforementioned restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.2.1987, dismissed the restoration application filed by Jaishri, holding that order dated 20.2.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the main proceeding had attained finality, as such, the restoration application against the order passed in the proceeding under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules as well as Section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act is not maintainable. In the year 1987, Tehsil Bhadohi was created, accordingly, village in question came under jurisdiction of the newly constituted Tehsil Bhadohi. Petitioner No.5-Smt. Shubhawanti filed another application under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules for implementation of the orders passed by the consolidation courts dated 20.2.1980, 18.10.1983 and 1.5.1974. The aforementioned application under Rule 109 of Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.8.1988. Pradhan of the village filed an application on 5.1.1989 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the order dated 10.8.1988, passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 14.3.1989 dismissed the application dated 5.1.1989 filed by the Pradhan of the the U.P. C.H. Rules was ultimately allowed by 3 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 village and directed the Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated 10.8.1988. Another application was filed by Pradhan before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for making inquiry in the matter and for setting aside the amaldaramad made by the consolidation authorities. On 28.6.1994, Tehsildar Bhadohhi sent a letter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for verification of the order passed by the consolidation courts. Mother of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 and other petitioners filed Writ Petition No.41051 of 1994, challenging the maintainability of the proceeding initiated by the Tehsildar, Bhadohi and application dated 7.12.1994 filed by Pradhan of the village. to comply inquiry, held the Consolidation Officer This Court vide order dated 17.1.1995 directed the authority concerned to decide the revision of the petitioners within 2 months. In compliance of the order dated 17.1.1995 passed by this Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi summoned the record of the case and verified the order dated 18.10.1983 passed in reference proceeding and directed the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to pass final order in compliance of the order dated 17.1.1995. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 4.6.1996 directed the order dated 18.10.1983 passed in Reference Case No.251. The Settlement that orders dated Officer of Consolidation after 18.10.1983 and 20.2.1987 were passed in proper manner, as such, the same should be complied with. In spite of the aforementioned orders passed by the consolidation authorities, the entry of the petitioners' name was not made in the revenue records, accordingly, petitioners approached the State Government for compliance of the order passed by the consolidation authorities. The State Government passed several orders for compliance but the revenue authorities did not take any steps in the matter. In the year 2012, Gram Panchayat of village Lakhanpur @ Abhyanpur along with others filed appeal in the court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi which was registered as Appeal Nos.1703 and 1705. Petitioners filed their objections against the appeals filed by the contesting respondents with the allegation that against the order dated 1.5.1974, passed by the Consolidation officer, the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was already dismissed on 19.7.1977 as well as the revision filed by Gram Panhayat against the order 19.7.1977 was already dismissed, as such, the instant appeals are not maintainable. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.2001 appeal/revision/restoration have already been dismissed against the instant appeals are not order dated 1.5.1974, as such, maintainable. Against the appellate order dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, three revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Out of the three revisions, two revisions were filed by dismissed appeals, holding 4 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 the Gram Sabha against the order passed in Appeal Nos. 1703 & 1704 and the third appeal was filed by the private respondent against the order passed in Appeal No.1705. The basis of the appeals as well as the revision filed by the Gram Panchayat, was that order dated 1.5.1974 was a forged and fictitious order. Respondent No.1/District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi under the impugned order dated 10.10.2001, registering the revision for consideration and stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 27.6.2001 along with other orders during pendency of the revisions, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Hence, this petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 10.10.2001 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Bhadohi revision filed by the contesting respondents (Annexure 18 to this writ petition)

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 not to proceed with the revision filed by the contesting respondents in pursuance of the order dated 10.10.2001 aforesaid."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 21.11.2001 and stayed the operation of the order dated 10.10.2001 till time-bound period. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.11.2001, parties have exchanged their pleadings. The aforementioned writ petition was dismissed in default but on the restoration application filed, the matter was ultimately restored.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were ordered to be recorded over the plots in question on the basis of lease (patta) executed by Raja of Banaras Estate and the appeal as well as revision were dismissed by the consolidation authorities, as such, filing of further appeal and revision is total abuse of process of law. He submitted that on the basis of final order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, consequential orders were passed in the proceeding under Section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act as well as under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules. He further submitted that the impugned order passed in the revision should be set aside and the proceeding of revision should be quashed. He submitted that Gram Sabha cannot initiate fresh the earlier proceeding before proceeding initiated by the Gram Sabha for the same cause of action, has already been rejected/dismissed by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that the writ petition should be allowed to the relief the consolidation authorities 5 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 claimed by the petitioners on the grounds set up in the instant petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by the petitioners are on misconceived grounds and cannot be allowed by the consolidation authorities as the plots in question are public utility plots. He further submitted that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.5.1974 is forged and fictitious, as such, same cannot be given effect to in the records. He submitted that earlier proceeding initiated in the name of Gram Sabha was forged and fictitious proceeding, as such, same will not come in the way of the revisional court to decide the revision in accordance with law. He submitted that under the impugned order, only revisions have been registered and the same are to be decided in accordance with law, as such, the instant petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that plots in question are valuable plots situated adjacent to main road and railway line and petitioners are interested to grab the valuable land of the State/Nagar Palika Parishad/Gram Panchayat. He submitted that the entire issue will be examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accordance with law after summoning the records of the proceeding as well as necessary reports regarding filing of objection/appeal/revision/restoration by the parties including Gram Panchayat/State. He further submitted that primary school is running over the plot in question and remaining vacant land is in use of the primary school for playground, as such, the petitioners cannot be given any right and title over the plots of public utility. He submitted that no interference is required in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel submitted that writ petition against is not maintainable, as such, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. the order, entertaining revisions

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that three revisions (two filed by the gaon sabha and one filed by private party) are pending before respondent no.1 for disposal. There is also no dispute about the fact that under the impugned order, three revisions have been registered and date has been fixed for disposal of the revisions, staying the operations of the order impugned in the revisions.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the relevant/operative portion of the impugned order, registering the revisions, will be relevant, which is as under:- 6 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 "2. मैंने दोनों प्षों की ओर से िदये गये तकॏल को सुना एवं अिभलेखों का अवलोकन िकया। अवर न्यायालयों तथा सम्ष न्यायालयों ्षारा जो तथाकिथत आदेश िवप्षीगण अपने हक में पािरत िकया जाना बताते हैं उनका आधार तथाकिथत आदेशों की मूल प्ऴाविलयाँ है िजनका ्िेस लगाना आवश्यक है। अवर न्यायालय ्षारा सरसरी तौर पर ्ऺथम प्ष की अपीलों को खािरज कर िदया। भूिम पर ्षाम पंचायत का कब्जा है। इस भूिम पर ्ऺाथिमक िव्यालय िस्थत है और शेष भाग का उपयोग के मैदान तथा सावर्जिनक िहत में उपयोग होता है। यह नगर भदोही से लगी हुए भदोही वाराणसी जाने वाली पक्की सड़क िजसके िनकट रेलवे लाईन से लगी हुई महत्वपूणर् भूिम है िजसे हड़पने की सािजश िवप्षीगण ्षारा करने के ्ऺथम प्ष के आरोप को िनराधार नहीं कहा जा सकता। इस भूिम पर मा० मुख्यमं्ऴी की जनसभा भी िदनांक 07.10.2001 को सम्पन्न हुई।

3. अतः न्यायिहत में तीनों िनगरािनयाँ समयाविध में दायर की हुई मानी जाती है और इनमें हुई िवलम्ब को ्षमा िकया जाता है तथा इन िनगरािनयों को पोषणीय मानते हुये इन्हें दजर् रिजस्टर िकया जाये तथा अवर न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िदनांक 27.06.2001 तथा अन्य आदेशों के ि्वयान्वयन इस िनगरािनयों के िनस्तारण के दौरान स्थिगत रहेगा। अवर न्यायालय की सभी प्ऴाविलयाँ मंगायी जायें। आदेश मेरे ्षारा हस्ता्षिरत एवं ितिथब्ध करके खुले न्यायालय में पोिषत िकया गया। िदनांकः 10.10.2001 (नरेन््श कु मार) िजला उप संचालक चकबन्दी कलेक्टर, सन्त रिवदास नगर भदोही" filing the delay

10. The perusal of the order impugned demonstrates that under the impugned order, the revisions have been registered for disposal, after condoning further demonstrates that plots in question are valuable plots, situated beside the Banaras-Varanasi road, nearer to railway line. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, averment has been made that petitioners have initiated proceeding in order to grab the property of the Gram Sabha. The report dated 14.5.1999, sent by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi, which is annexed along the revision. The order 7 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 with the counter affidavit of State as C.A-1, will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "िजलािधकारी, संत रिवदास नगर। सिचव, उ्तर ्ऺदेश शासन, राजस्व अऩुभाग-80 लखनऊ संख्याः 513/एस०टी०-एडीएम िदनांक- मई 14, 1999 िवषयः- ्षाम िभखारीपुर तहसील व परगना भदोही में मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 29-1-98 के अनुपालन में अमल-दरामद की कायर्वाही िकये जाने के संबंध में। र््व िवषयक आपके प्ऴ संख्या 1121/1-8/98-58(75)/2-98रा०8 िदनांक फरवरी उपयु 16, 1999 के संदभर् में अवगत कराना है िक बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी, वाराणसी ्षारा उप संचालक चकबन्दी को दी गयी सूचना के अनुसार ्षाम िभखारीपुरा को धारा 52 का ्ऺकाशन िदनांक 23-9-67 को हुआ है। इस ्ऺकार मु० रामकली, मु० शुभवन्ती, मु० अनन्ती व मु० अशफर् देवी ्षारा धारा 9क(२) उ०्ऺ० जोत चकबन्दी अिधिनयम के अन्तगर्त , गांव सभा की 12 िकता रकबा 13 बीघा 14 िबस्वा एक धूर भूिम पर सं्वमणीय भूिमधर दजर् िकये जाने का जो आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74, चकबन्दी अिधकारी से करवाया गया बताया जाता है, वह धारा 52 के ्ऺकाशन के करीब 7 वषर् बाद पािरत िकया गया है। इस आदेश के िवरू्ध जय्शी आिद की िनगरानी िदनांक 20-02-80 को िनरस्त की गयी है। इस संबंध में यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है िक उ्व आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 के िवरू्ध बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी संत रिवदास नगर के यहां अपील संख्या 1703 सन 1996 िवचाराधीन है लेिकन मूल वाद प्ऴावली उपलब्ध न हो सकने तथा बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी के िवरू्ध स्थानान्तरण ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ दे देने के कारण अपील का िनस्तारण अभी तक नहीं हो सका। इस ्ऺकार स्प्ि है िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी के िजस आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 का ्ऺाथर्गण खतौनी में अमलदरामद चाहती हैं, वह अभी अि़७तम नहीं है, बिल्क न्याियक ्ऺि्वया के अ़७तगर्त है। उपरो्व आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 के प्ाात मु० शुभवन्ती आिद ि्षारा एक ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ करीब 8 वषर् 9 माह बाद िदनांक 17-2-83 संदभर् तैयार करने हेतु िदया गया िजस पर संदभर् संख्या 251 मु० शुभवन्ती बनाम सरकार िदनांक 18-10-83 को स्वीकृ त िकया 8 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 गया। इस आदेश के प्ाात धारा 109 क के अन्तगर्त एक वाद िदनांक 21-3-84 को िनयिमत िकया गया। उ्व दोनों आदेशों के िवरू्ध जय्शी आिद ्षारा एक पुनर्स्थापन प्ऴ िदनांक 16-12-96 को गांव सभा की ओर से िदया गया िजस पर तत्कालीन उप संचालक चकबन्दी ्षारा आदेश िदनांक 18-10-83 स्थिगत कर िदया गया। पुनस्थार्पन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ उप संचालक चकबन्दी के यहां लिम्बत है। इस ्ऺकार आदेश िदनांक 18-10-83 भी अभी अिन्तम नहीं है। उपरो्व के अितिर्व धारा 109 क उ०्ऺ० जोत चकबन्दी अिध० के अन्तगर्त एक वाद संख्या 64 मु० शुभवन्ती आिद ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया िजसमें िदनांक 10-08-88 को गांव सभा की वाद्षस्त भूिम पर मु० शुभवन्ती व मु० रामकली आिद का नाम दजर् िकये जाने का आदेश िकया गया। इस आदेश के िवरू्ध भी एक पुनस्थार्पन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ तत्कालीन ्षाम ्ऺधान ्षारा िदया गया जो उप संचालक चकबन्दी ्षारा िदनांक 14-3-89 को िनरस्त कर िदया गया। बाद में उ्व आदेश िदनांक 10-8-88 भी वतर्मान ्षाम ्ऺधान के ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ पर उप संचालक चकबन्दी ्षारा िदनांक 16-12-96 को स्थिगत कर िदया गया। आदेश दनांक 10-8-88 के िवरू्ध बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी न्यायालय में अपील संख्या 1704 सन 1996 भी िवचाराधीन है। इस ्ऺकार यह आदेश भी अिन्तम नहीं है। उपरो्व से स्प्ि है िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी का आदेश धारा 9क(2) िदनांक 1-5-74 व आदेश िनयम 109 क िदनांक 10-8-88 तथा िदनांक 18-10-83 अभी अिन्तम नहीं है। अतः ऐसी िस्थित में मूल आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 जो गांव सभा की 13 बीघा 14 िबस्वा एक धर भूिम को हड़पने के उ्देश्य से कराया गया है, का अमलदरामद कराया जाना न तो न्यायसंगत है और न गांव सभा व राज्य सरकार के िहत में है क्योंिक वाद्षस्त भूिम पर ्ऺाथर्गण के अिधकार व स्वतं्ऴ अभी अि़७तम रूप से िनणर्त नहीं हुये हैं। मूल वाद प्ऴावली के न िमलने और संदभर् बनाने हेतु आदेश के 9 वषर् बाद ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदये जाने के कारण पूरा ्ऺकरण संिदग्ध है। चकबन्दी अिधकारी ने एक आख्या दी है िक संदभर् प्ऴावली पर आख्या िजस फामर् पर दी गयी है वह राजकीय ्ऺेस ्षारा 2-6-83 की ितिथ में छपा है जबिक संदभर् में जो आख्या चकबन्दीकतार्, लेखपाल आिद ्षारा तैयार की गयी है वह 5- 5-83 की ितिथ में है। स्प्ि है िक फामर् छपने के पूवर् की ितिथ में संदभर् की तैयारी संबंिधत आख्या ्ऺस्तुत िकये जाने से ही स्प्ि है िक ्ऺासंिगक ्ऺकरण में बैकडेिटग की गयी है िजससे यह स्वतः संिदग्ध हो जाता है। जहाँ तक धारा 52 के ्ऺकाशन के प्ाात अपील/पुनस्थार्पन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदये जाने पर ंिक चकबन्दी अिधकारी का आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 धारा 52 के सुनाई का ्ऺश्न है, चू 9 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 ्ऺकाशन के बाद पािरत िकया गया है। अतः वह ए०एल०जे० 1990 पृ्ष संख्या 522 में दी गयी ्िवस्था के अनुसार सुनवाई व िनणर्य हेतु स्वीकार िकया जा सकता है। ्शीमती अशफर् देवी पत्नी अमरनाथ िनवासी ्षाम सारीपुर उफर् उमरपुर ्षारा िदनांक 7-2- 98 को खतौनी में अमलदरामद िकये जाने िवषयक िदये गये ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ पर आदेश पािरत िकया गया है िजसकी ्ऺित संलग्न है। संलग्नकः उपरो्वानुसार भवदीय ह०अ० (डी०एन०लाल) िजलािधकारी, संत रिवदास नगर"

11. In view of the report dated 14.5.1999 as quoted above, the pending revisions require adjudication in accordance with law rather to quash the proceeding of the pending revisions under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad has also submitted before this Court that order dated 1.5.1974 is forged and fictitious, as such, no right can be given to the petitioners on the basis of fraudulent orders alleged to be passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeal and revision against the order dated 1.5.1974 have already been dismissed, as such, argument of learned counsel for the Nagar Palika cannot be accepted.

13. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and evidence on record, the interest of justice requires that pending revisions should be decided in accordance with law by respondent no.1.

14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 10.10.2001 passed by respondent no.1. 10 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 is dismissed. However,

15. The writ petition respondent no.1/revisional court is directed to decide the aforementioned three revisions expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, considering about the order dated 1.5.1974 as well as the filing of earlier appeal and revision by the Gram Panchayat or fraudulent attempts have been made by the unauthorized person to file appeal and revision in the name of Gram Panchayat. Necessary report shall also be obtained by revisional court regarding the order dated 1.5.1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer. October 13, 2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhadohi and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to the plots as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the instant petition. According to the petitioners, the plots in dispute were granted on lease (patta) to the petitioners by erstwhile Raja of Banaras Estate on 6.6.1944 and the petitioners were accordingly in possession over the same. The consolidation operation started in the village in question in the year 1964. Petitioners filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") for expunging the basic year entry of the ushar land in respect to the plots in question and further the petitioners be declared sirdar/bhoomidhar of the plots in question on the basis of patta executed by Banaras Estate on 6.6.1944. Gram Sabha filed objection to the claim of the petitioners, stating that plots in question are public utility plots, as such, petitioners cannot be declared sirdar/bhoomidhar of the same. The Consolidation officer, Gyapur, 2 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 Varanasi vide judgment/order dated 1.5.1974 allowed the objection of the petitioners and declared them sirdar/bhoomidhar of the plots in question. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.5.1974, Gram Sabha as well as one Sita Ram have filed appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal Nos. 1660 & 1661. The aforementioned appeals were heard together and the same were dismissed by a common order dated 19.7.1977. Against the appellate order dated 19.7.1977, Sita Ram and Others filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.80. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.2.1980 dismissed the revision. Against the order dated filed a restoration application dated 20.1.1980, Gram Sabha 27.2.1980 which was rejected on 31.10.1980. In pursuance of the order of the Consolidation Officer, which has been maintained in appeal and revision, reference proceeding under Section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act was initiated by the petitioners which was registered as Reference No.251. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.10.1983 allowed the Reference Case No.251. Proceeding under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Rules") was initiated by the petitioners, accordingly, an order dated 21.3.1984 was passed by the Consolidation Officer for compliance of the order dated 18.10.1983. Against the orders dated 18.10.1983 and 21.3.1984, a restoration application was filed by one Jaishri, son of Beni, stating that the impugned orders are ex parte. The petitioners filed their objections to the aforementioned restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.2.1987, dismissed the restoration application filed by Jaishri, holding that order dated 20.2.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the main proceeding had attained finality, as such, the restoration application against the order passed in the proceeding under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules as well as Section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act is not maintainable. In the year 1987, Tehsil Bhadohi was created, accordingly, village in question came under jurisdiction of the newly constituted Tehsil Bhadohi. Petitioner No.5-Smt. Shubhawanti filed another application under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules for implementation of the orders passed by the consolidation courts dated 20.2.1980, 18.10.1983 and 1.5.1974. The aforementioned application under Rule 109 of Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.8.1988. Pradhan of the village filed an application on 5.1.1989 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the order dated 10.8.1988, passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 14.3.1989 dismissed the application dated 5.1.1989 filed by the Pradhan of the the U.P. C.H. Rules was ultimately allowed by 3 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 village and directed the Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated 10.8.1988. Another application was filed by Pradhan before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for making inquiry in the matter and for setting aside the amaldaramad made by the consolidation authorities. On 28.6.1994, Tehsildar Bhadohhi sent a letter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for verification of the order passed by the consolidation courts. Mother of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 and other petitioners filed Writ Petition No.41051 of 1994, challenging the maintainability of the proceeding initiated by the Tehsildar, Bhadohi and application dated 7.12.1994 filed by Pradhan of the village. to comply inquiry, held the Consolidation Officer This Court vide order dated 17.1.1995 directed the authority concerned to decide the revision of the petitioners within 2 months. In compliance of the order dated 17.1.1995 passed by this Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi summoned the record of the case and verified the order dated 18.10.1983 passed in reference proceeding and directed the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to pass final order in compliance of the order dated 17.1.1995. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 4.6.1996 directed the order dated 18.10.1983 passed in Reference Case No.251. The Settlement that orders dated Officer of Consolidation after 18.10.1983 and 20.2.1987 were passed in proper manner, as such, the same should be complied with. In spite of the aforementioned orders passed by the consolidation authorities, the entry of the petitioners' name was not made in the revenue records, accordingly, petitioners approached the State Government for compliance of the order passed by the consolidation authorities. The State Government passed several orders for compliance but the revenue authorities did not take any steps in the matter. In the year 2012, Gram Panchayat of village Lakhanpur @ Abhyanpur along with others filed appeal in the court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi which was registered as Appeal Nos.1703 and 1705. Petitioners filed their objections against the appeals filed by the contesting respondents with the allegation that against the order dated 1.5.1974, passed by the Consolidation officer, the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was already dismissed on 19.7.1977 as well as the revision filed by Gram Panhayat against the order 19.7.1977 was already dismissed, as such, the instant appeals are not maintainable. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.2001 appeal/revision/restoration have already been dismissed against the instant appeals are not order dated 1.5.1974, as such, maintainable. Against the appellate order dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, three revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Out of the three revisions, two revisions were filed by dismissed appeals, holding 4 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 the Gram Sabha against the order passed in Appeal Nos. 1703 & 1704 and the third appeal was filed by the private respondent against the order passed in Appeal No.1705. The basis of the appeals as well as the revision filed by the Gram Panchayat, was that order dated 1.5.1974 was a forged and fictitious order. Respondent No.1/District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi under the impugned order dated 10.10.2001, registering the revision for consideration and stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 27.6.2001 along with other orders during pendency of the revisions, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Hence, this petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 10.10.2001 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Bhadohi revision filed by the contesting respondents (Annexure 18 to this writ petition)

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 not to proceed with the revision filed by the contesting respondents in pursuance of the order dated 10.10.2001 aforesaid."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 21.11.2001 and stayed the operation of the order dated 10.10.2001 till time-bound period. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.11.2001, parties have exchanged their pleadings. The aforementioned writ petition was dismissed in default but on the restoration application filed, the matter was ultimately restored.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were ordered to be recorded over the plots in question on the basis of lease (patta) executed by Raja of Banaras Estate and the appeal as well as revision were dismissed by the consolidation authorities, as such, filing of further appeal and revision is total abuse of process of law. He submitted that on the basis of final order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, consequential orders were passed in the proceeding under Section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act as well as under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules. He further submitted that the impugned order passed in the revision should be set aside and the proceeding of revision should be quashed. He submitted that Gram Sabha cannot initiate fresh the earlier proceeding before proceeding initiated by the Gram Sabha for the same cause of action, has already been rejected/dismissed by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that the writ petition should be allowed to the relief the consolidation authorities 5 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 claimed by the petitioners on the grounds set up in the instant petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by the petitioners are on misconceived grounds and cannot be allowed by the consolidation authorities as the plots in question are public utility plots. He further submitted that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.5.1974 is forged and fictitious, as such, same cannot be given effect to in the records. He submitted that earlier proceeding initiated in the name of Gram Sabha was forged and fictitious proceeding, as such, same will not come in the way of the revisional court to decide the revision in accordance with law. He submitted that under the impugned order, only revisions have been registered and the same are to be decided in accordance with law, as such, the instant petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that plots in question are valuable plots situated adjacent to main road and railway line and petitioners are interested to grab the valuable land of the State/Nagar Palika Parishad/Gram Panchayat. He submitted that the entire issue will be examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accordance with law after summoning the records of the proceeding as well as necessary reports regarding filing of objection/appeal/revision/restoration by the parties including Gram Panchayat/State. He further submitted that primary school is running over the plot in question and remaining vacant land is in use of the primary school for playground, as such, the petitioners cannot be given any right and title over the plots of public utility. He submitted that no interference is required in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel submitted that writ petition against is not maintainable, as such, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. the order, entertaining revisions

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that three revisions (two filed by the gaon sabha and one filed by private party) are pending before respondent no.1 for disposal. There is also no dispute about the fact that under the impugned order, three revisions have been registered and date has been fixed for disposal of the revisions, staying the operations of the order impugned in the revisions.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the relevant/operative portion of the impugned order, registering the revisions, will be relevant, which is as under:- 6 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 "2. मैंने दोनों प्षों की ओर से िदये गये तकॏल को सुना एवं अिभलेखों का अवलोकन िकया। अवर न्यायालयों तथा सम्ष न्यायालयों ्षारा जो तथाकिथत आदेश िवप्षीगण अपने हक में पािरत िकया जाना बताते हैं उनका आधार तथाकिथत आदेशों की मूल प्ऴाविलयाँ है िजनका ्िेस लगाना आवश्यक है। अवर न्यायालय ्षारा सरसरी तौर पर ्ऺथम प्ष की अपीलों को खािरज कर िदया। भूिम पर ्षाम पंचायत का कब्जा है। इस भूिम पर ्ऺाथिमक िव्यालय िस्थत है और शेष भाग का उपयोग के मैदान तथा सावर्जिनक िहत में उपयोग होता है। यह नगर भदोही से लगी हुए भदोही वाराणसी जाने वाली पक्की सड़क िजसके िनकट रेलवे लाईन से लगी हुई महत्वपूणर् भूिम है िजसे हड़पने की सािजश िवप्षीगण ्षारा करने के ्ऺथम प्ष के आरोप को िनराधार नहीं कहा जा सकता। इस भूिम पर मा० मुख्यमं्ऴी की जनसभा भी िदनांक 07.10.2001 को सम्पन्न हुई।

3. अतः न्यायिहत में तीनों िनगरािनयाँ समयाविध में दायर की हुई मानी जाती है और इनमें हुई िवलम्ब को ्षमा िकया जाता है तथा इन िनगरािनयों को पोषणीय मानते हुये इन्हें दजर् रिजस्टर िकया जाये तथा अवर न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत िनणर्य िदनांक 27.06.2001 तथा अन्य आदेशों के ि्वयान्वयन इस िनगरािनयों के िनस्तारण के दौरान स्थिगत रहेगा। अवर न्यायालय की सभी प्ऴाविलयाँ मंगायी जायें। आदेश मेरे ्षारा हस्ता्षिरत एवं ितिथब्ध करके खुले न्यायालय में पोिषत िकया गया। िदनांकः 10.10.2001 (नरेन््श कु मार) िजला उप संचालक चकबन्दी कलेक्टर, सन्त रिवदास नगर भदोही" filing the delay

10. The perusal of the order impugned demonstrates that under the impugned order, the revisions have been registered for disposal, after condoning further demonstrates that plots in question are valuable plots, situated beside the Banaras-Varanasi road, nearer to railway line. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, averment has been made that petitioners have initiated proceeding in order to grab the property of the Gram Sabha. The report dated 14.5.1999, sent by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi, which is annexed along the revision. The order 7 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 with the counter affidavit of State as C.A-1, will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "िजलािधकारी, संत रिवदास नगर। सिचव, उ्तर ्ऺदेश शासन, राजस्व अऩुभाग-80 लखनऊ संख्याः 513/एस०टी०-एडीएम िदनांक- मई 14, 1999 िवषयः- ्षाम िभखारीपुर तहसील व परगना भदोही में मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 29-1-98 के अनुपालन में अमल-दरामद की कायर्वाही िकये जाने के संबंध में। र््व िवषयक आपके प्ऴ संख्या 1121/1-8/98-58(75)/2-98रा०8 िदनांक फरवरी उपयु 16, 1999 के संदभर् में अवगत कराना है िक बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी, वाराणसी ्षारा उप संचालक चकबन्दी को दी गयी सूचना के अनुसार ्षाम िभखारीपुरा को धारा 52 का ्ऺकाशन िदनांक 23-9-67 को हुआ है। इस ्ऺकार मु० रामकली, मु० शुभवन्ती, मु० अनन्ती व मु० अशफर् देवी ्षारा धारा 9क(२) उ०्ऺ० जोत चकबन्दी अिधिनयम के अन्तगर्त , गांव सभा की 12 िकता रकबा 13 बीघा 14 िबस्वा एक धूर भूिम पर सं्वमणीय भूिमधर दजर् िकये जाने का जो आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74, चकबन्दी अिधकारी से करवाया गया बताया जाता है, वह धारा 52 के ्ऺकाशन के करीब 7 वषर् बाद पािरत िकया गया है। इस आदेश के िवरू्ध जय्शी आिद की िनगरानी िदनांक 20-02-80 को िनरस्त की गयी है। इस संबंध में यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है िक उ्व आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 के िवरू्ध बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी संत रिवदास नगर के यहां अपील संख्या 1703 सन 1996 िवचाराधीन है लेिकन मूल वाद प्ऴावली उपलब्ध न हो सकने तथा बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी के िवरू्ध स्थानान्तरण ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ दे देने के कारण अपील का िनस्तारण अभी तक नहीं हो सका। इस ्ऺकार स्प्ि है िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी के िजस आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 का ्ऺाथर्गण खतौनी में अमलदरामद चाहती हैं, वह अभी अि़७तम नहीं है, बिल्क न्याियक ्ऺि्वया के अ़७तगर्त है। उपरो्व आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 के प्ाात मु० शुभवन्ती आिद ि्षारा एक ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ करीब 8 वषर् 9 माह बाद िदनांक 17-2-83 संदभर् तैयार करने हेतु िदया गया िजस पर संदभर् संख्या 251 मु० शुभवन्ती बनाम सरकार िदनांक 18-10-83 को स्वीकृ त िकया 8 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 गया। इस आदेश के प्ाात धारा 109 क के अन्तगर्त एक वाद िदनांक 21-3-84 को िनयिमत िकया गया। उ्व दोनों आदेशों के िवरू्ध जय्शी आिद ्षारा एक पुनर्स्थापन प्ऴ िदनांक 16-12-96 को गांव सभा की ओर से िदया गया िजस पर तत्कालीन उप संचालक चकबन्दी ्षारा आदेश िदनांक 18-10-83 स्थिगत कर िदया गया। पुनस्थार्पन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ उप संचालक चकबन्दी के यहां लिम्बत है। इस ्ऺकार आदेश िदनांक 18-10-83 भी अभी अिन्तम नहीं है। उपरो्व के अितिर्व धारा 109 क उ०्ऺ० जोत चकबन्दी अिध० के अन्तगर्त एक वाद संख्या 64 मु० शुभवन्ती आिद ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया िजसमें िदनांक 10-08-88 को गांव सभा की वाद्षस्त भूिम पर मु० शुभवन्ती व मु० रामकली आिद का नाम दजर् िकये जाने का आदेश िकया गया। इस आदेश के िवरू्ध भी एक पुनस्थार्पन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ तत्कालीन ्षाम ्ऺधान ्षारा िदया गया जो उप संचालक चकबन्दी ्षारा िदनांक 14-3-89 को िनरस्त कर िदया गया। बाद में उ्व आदेश िदनांक 10-8-88 भी वतर्मान ्षाम ्ऺधान के ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ पर उप संचालक चकबन्दी ्षारा िदनांक 16-12-96 को स्थिगत कर िदया गया। आदेश दनांक 10-8-88 के िवरू्ध बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी न्यायालय में अपील संख्या 1704 सन 1996 भी िवचाराधीन है। इस ्ऺकार यह आदेश भी अिन्तम नहीं है। उपरो्व से स्प्ि है िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी का आदेश धारा 9क(2) िदनांक 1-5-74 व आदेश िनयम 109 क िदनांक 10-8-88 तथा िदनांक 18-10-83 अभी अिन्तम नहीं है। अतः ऐसी िस्थित में मूल आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 जो गांव सभा की 13 बीघा 14 िबस्वा एक धर भूिम को हड़पने के उ्देश्य से कराया गया है, का अमलदरामद कराया जाना न तो न्यायसंगत है और न गांव सभा व राज्य सरकार के िहत में है क्योंिक वाद्षस्त भूिम पर ्ऺाथर्गण के अिधकार व स्वतं्ऴ अभी अि़७तम रूप से िनणर्त नहीं हुये हैं। मूल वाद प्ऴावली के न िमलने और संदभर् बनाने हेतु आदेश के 9 वषर् बाद ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदये जाने के कारण पूरा ्ऺकरण संिदग्ध है। चकबन्दी अिधकारी ने एक आख्या दी है िक संदभर् प्ऴावली पर आख्या िजस फामर् पर दी गयी है वह राजकीय ्ऺेस ्षारा 2-6-83 की ितिथ में छपा है जबिक संदभर् में जो आख्या चकबन्दीकतार्, लेखपाल आिद ्षारा तैयार की गयी है वह 5- 5-83 की ितिथ में है। स्प्ि है िक फामर् छपने के पूवर् की ितिथ में संदभर् की तैयारी संबंिधत आख्या ्ऺस्तुत िकये जाने से ही स्प्ि है िक ्ऺासंिगक ्ऺकरण में बैकडेिटग की गयी है िजससे यह स्वतः संिदग्ध हो जाता है। जहाँ तक धारा 52 के ्ऺकाशन के प्ाात अपील/पुनस्थार्पन ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदये जाने पर ंिक चकबन्दी अिधकारी का आदेश िदनांक 1-5-74 धारा 52 के सुनाई का ्ऺश्न है, चू 9 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 ्ऺकाशन के बाद पािरत िकया गया है। अतः वह ए०एल०जे० 1990 पृ्ष संख्या 522 में दी गयी ्िवस्था के अनुसार सुनवाई व िनणर्य हेतु स्वीकार िकया जा सकता है। ्शीमती अशफर् देवी पत्नी अमरनाथ िनवासी ्षाम सारीपुर उफर् उमरपुर ्षारा िदनांक 7-2- 98 को खतौनी में अमलदरामद िकये जाने िवषयक िदये गये ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ पर आदेश पािरत िकया गया है िजसकी ्ऺित संलग्न है। संलग्नकः उपरो्वानुसार भवदीय ह०अ० (डी०एन०लाल) िजलािधकारी, संत रिवदास नगर"

11. In view of the report dated 14.5.1999 as quoted above, the pending revisions require adjudication in accordance with law rather to quash the proceeding of the pending revisions under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad has also submitted before this Court that order dated 1.5.1974 is forged and fictitious, as such, no right can be given to the petitioners on the basis of fraudulent orders alleged to be passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeal and revision against the order dated 1.5.1974 have already been dismissed, as such, argument of learned counsel for the Nagar Palika cannot be accepted.

13. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and evidence on record, the interest of justice requires that pending revisions should be decided in accordance with law by respondent no.1.

14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 10.10.2001 passed by respondent no.1. 10 WRIB No. 37184 of 2001 is dismissed. However,

15. The writ petition respondent no.1/revisional court is directed to decide the aforementioned three revisions expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, considering about the order dated 1.5.1974 as well as the filing of earlier appeal and revision by the Gram Panchayat or fraudulent attempts have been made by the unauthorized person to file appeal and revision in the name of Gram Panchayat. Necessary report shall also be obtained by revisional court regarding the order dated 1.5.1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer. October 13, 2025 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad