Shiv Kumar v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

#2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Kumar Rai/Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel has filed caveat on behalf of one Ravinder Pal Singh and Paramjit Singh but those persons have not been impleaded in the instant petition as such there is no necessity to hear Sri Vikrant Rana learned counsel in this writ petition.

#3. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act"), the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.3.2004 decided the objection, directing to record the name of 61 persons including the respondent no.4/Devendra, son of Late Patram as bhumidhar with transferable rights. Against the order dated 1.3.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer, restoration/recall application was filed which was rejected on 20.11.2006. Against the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the appeal was filed by the State before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal No.318/41 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.2.2016 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.11.2006. No appeal was filed by the petitioner or his father against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.3.2004/20.11.2006. Against the appellate order dated 29.2.2016, revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner's father which was registered as Revision No.106. The other revisions were also filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. All the revisions were consolidated and heard together by the Deputy Directory of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.3.2025 dismissed all the revisions and maintained the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 29.2.2016. Hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 3.3.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Revision No.106/2016 (Jagdish and Others vs. Devendra and Others) and the order dated 29.2.2016 passed in Appeal No.318/41 (State vs. Surajmal and Others) by Settlemetn Officer of Consolidation, District Gautam Buddh Nagar and the order dated 1.3.2004 passed in Case No.60 of 2003-04 (Surajmal adn Others vs. Deshbhakt adn Others) by the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the petitioner respectively.) (b) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute."

#4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is also entitled to be recorded over the plot in question. He submitted that the claim of the petitioner was not examined by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation while passing the impugned orders. He submitted that the petitioner's father has filed revision against the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of the Consolidation with the prayer that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be set aside and direction be issued for recording the name of the petitioner along with respondent no.4 over the plot in question.

#5. On the other hand, Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the Consolidation Officer has decided the dispute after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He submitted that the detailed order was passed by the Consolidation Officer for recording the name of 61 persons who established their claim before the Consolidation officer in accordance with law and respondent no.4 was ordered to be recorded over the plot in question along with 60 other tenure holders. He submitted that appeal filed by the State against the order of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed. He further submitted that petitioner, for the first time, filed revision for modifying the order of the Consolidation Officer which has been rightly dismissed under the impugned order along with the other revisions. He submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, the writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

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

#7. There is no dispute about the fact that title objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was decided by the Consolidation Officer after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence and the name of respondent no.4 along with 60 other tenure holders were ordered to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right over the plot in question.

#8. It is material to mention that no claim was set up either before the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer of Consolidation rather the appeal was filed by the State which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The petitioner, for the first time, filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act with the prayer that name of the petitioner should also be recorded along with respondent no.4 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision of petitioner along with other revisions, recording finding of fact that the Consolidation Officer has properly decided the title dispute in respect to the plot in question and no further interference is required in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

#9. Petitioner has failed to prove prima facie case of his title in respect to the plot in dispute even before this Court.

#10. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer as maintained by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, there is no scope of interference, particularly, at the instance of the petitioner who has not set up his claim before the Consolidation Officer, as such, no interference can be made in respect to the revisional order passed in Revision No.106 of 2016.

#11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 24.3.2025/C.Prakash CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad