High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Mauja Tajuddinpur, Pargana & Tehsil-Madiyahu, Police Station-Madiyahu, District-Jaunpur came under operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act. The dispute in the present petition is in respect to plot nos. 124 and 130 situated at village Tajuddinpur, Pargana & Tehsil-Madiyahu, Police Station- Madiyahu, District-Jaunpur. Certain person filed a miscellaneous application before Consolidation authorities dated 03.08.2019 with the prayer that petitioner be restrained from raising construction over the plot nos. 130 and 124. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed an order on 03.08.2019 restraining the parties from raising the construction over the plots in question. Another application was filed on 05.08.2019 and Settlement Officer of Consolidation has also passed the order to the effect that no construction shall be raised without permission of the authorities over the plot nos. 124 and 130. Another application was filed on 04.12.2019 by private respondents and order dated 04.12.2019 was passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation restraining the parties from raising the construction over the plot nos. 124 and 130. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petition for following reliefs:- i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 03.08.2019 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, & 05.08.2019 and 04.1.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding and directing respondents authorities not to give effect to impugned order dated: 03.08.2019 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, & 05.08.2019 and 04.12.2019 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur. iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities no to interfere in the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the petitioner over Gata No. 130 (1/16 share) situated at Mauja Tajuddinpur, Pargana & Tehsil-Madiyahu, Police Station-Madiyahu, District- Jaunpur. iv. issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. This Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter. On 18.11.2021, notices were issued to the private respondent nos. 6 to 10. As per office report, service is sufficient upon private respondents.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has already filed his counter affidavit in the matter and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that plot no. 130 is out of Consolidation operation (CH- 18), as such there is no requirement to obtain permission regarding construction in respect to plot no. 130. He next submitted that even proper proceeding as provided under Section 5(1)(C) of the U.P.C.H. Act has not been initiated, as such impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that petitioner's Dharmshala is situated over the plot no. 130, which requires necessary repairing/re- construction, but due to order passed by Consolidation authorities on the miscellaneous application, the entire work is held up in respect to the plot no. 130, which is out of Consolidation operation. He further submitted that one Civil Suit filed on behalf of the petitioner in respect to plot no. 124 is pending before the Civil Court and against the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is pending before this Court, but that will not come in the way of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders passed in respect to plot no. 130.

6. On the other hand, Sri Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation authorities. He further submitted that so far as plot no. 124 is concerned, a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the Civil Court. He next submitted that Consolidation proceeding is pending in the village in question, as such the petitioner should avail remedy before Consolidation Court rather writ petition before this Court.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that plot no. 130 is out side Consolidation operation and plot no. 124 is within Consolidation operation.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by State will be relevant, which is as under:- "That the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition are matters of record and averments contrary to record are not admitted, hence denied. In reply it is submitted here that the according the revenue records of Village Tajuddinpur Pargana and Tehsil Mariyahu District Jaunpur, the gata no. 124M area 0.445 Hect is recorded in the revenue record jointly in the name of petitioner Paras Nath son of Harideen, Sugriv, Vishram sons of Bode Mevwalal, Munshi Lal sons of Chinigi, Sabhagjeet, Brijlal sons of Kaloo, Agar Doodhnath sons of Laloo, Kailashi Devi wife of Sagar, Suraj son of Sagar Munni Lal, Ram Vilas sons of Banwani, Bachchan Babu sons of Gangadhari, Bholenath (Mitthu), Omprakash sons of Lalmani, Amiriti widow of Lalmani, Paras Nath son of Harideen, Triveni son of Lalji Hawaldar, Rajbahadur, Rajesh Harinath resident of same village. The Gata No. 130 area 0.206 Hectare of Khata No. 202 recorded in the revenue record jointly in the name of petitioner Paras Nath son of Harideen and Sugriv, Vishram sons of Bode Mewalal, Munni Lal sons of Chingi Sabhajeet, Brijlal sons of Kaloo Agar, Doodhnath sons of Laloo, Kailashi Devi wife of Sagar Suraj son of Sagar Munni Lal, Ram Vilas sons of Banwari, Bachchan, Babu sons of Gangadhari, Bholenath, Radhey Shyam (Mitthu) Om Prakash sons of Lalmani, Amiriti widow of Lalmani, Paras nath sons of Hari Deen, Triveni son of Lalji, Hawaldar, Ratti Lal, Amrit Lal, Brijesh sons of Chotelal, Prabhawati Devi wife of Chote Lal resident of same village. The gata No. 124 and 130 are joint holding in the name of petitioner and the respondents and no partition took place. The petitioner filed an application under Section 5-C of U.P.C.H. Act seeking permission for raising construction. The respondent namely Chote Lal and others filed an objection against the application filed by the petitioner and the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 03.08.2019 passed order and restrained to the petitioner for raising construction over gata no. 130 as no notification under Section 9 was published in the area. It is further submitted that now on 21.03.2023, the notification under Section 9 has been published and after spot inspection, the gata no. 130 has been expunged from the consolidation proceeding and the valuation of the said gata has not been fixed. At present, the gata no. 124 and 130 are being used by the petitioner as well as respondents as Abadi land. It is further submitted that since the gata no. 130 was the joint holding of the petitioner and other co-tenure holders and the land being gata no. 130 was not exclusive land of the petitioner, hence the petitioner was raising illegal construction."

10. A perusal of the paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the State fully demonstrates that plot no. 130 is out side the Consolidation operation (CH-18), as such there was no occasion to pass the impugned orders in respect to plot no. 130 .

11. Miscellaneous Application filed by the private respondents cannot be entertained and allowed by the Consolidation authorities, so far as plot no. 130 is concerned.

12. Perusal of C.H. Form-2A annexed as annexure no. SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.05.2025 filed by State also demonstrate that plot no. 130 is C.H.-18.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 03.08.2019 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, orders dated 05.08.2019 and 04.12.2019 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside so far as it relates to plot no. 130. The writ petition stands allowed in part in respect to plot no. 130.

14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Mauja Tajuddinpur, Pargana & Tehsil-Madiyahu, Police Station-Madiyahu, District-Jaunpur came under operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act. The dispute in the present petition is in respect to plot nos. 124 and 130 situated at village Tajuddinpur, Pargana & Tehsil-Madiyahu, Police Station- Madiyahu, District-Jaunpur. Certain person filed a miscellaneous application before Consolidation authorities dated 03.08.2019 with the prayer that petitioner be restrained from raising construction over the plot nos. 130 and 124. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed an order on 03.08.2019 restraining the parties from raising the construction over the plots in question. Another application was filed on 05.08.2019 and Settlement Officer of Consolidation has also passed the order to the effect that no construction shall be raised without permission of the authorities over the plot nos. 124 and 130. Another application was filed on 04.12.2019 by private respondents and order dated 04.12.2019 was passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation restraining the parties from raising the construction over the plot nos. 124 and 130. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petition for following reliefs:- i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 03.08.2019 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, & 05.08.2019 and 04.1.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding and directing respondents authorities not to give effect to impugned order dated: 03.08.2019 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, & 05.08.2019 and 04.12.2019 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur. iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities no to interfere in the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the petitioner over Gata No. 130 (1/16 share) situated at Mauja Tajuddinpur, Pargana & Tehsil-Madiyahu, Police Station-Madiyahu, District- Jaunpur. iv. issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. This Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter. On 18.11.2021, notices were issued to the private respondent nos. 6 to 10. As per office report, service is sufficient upon private respondents.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has already filed his counter affidavit in the matter and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that plot no. 130 is out of Consolidation operation (CH- 18), as such there is no requirement to obtain permission regarding construction in respect to plot no. 130. He next submitted that even proper proceeding as provided under Section 5(1)(C) of the U.P.C.H. Act has not been initiated, as such impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that petitioner's Dharmshala is situated over the plot no. 130, which requires necessary repairing/re- construction, but due to order passed by Consolidation authorities on the miscellaneous application, the entire work is held up in respect to the plot no. 130, which is out of Consolidation operation. He further submitted that one Civil Suit filed on behalf of the petitioner in respect to plot no. 124 is pending before the Civil Court and against the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is pending before this Court, but that will not come in the way of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders passed in respect to plot no. 130.

6. On the other hand, Sri Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation authorities. He further submitted that so far as plot no. 124 is concerned, a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the Civil Court. He next submitted that Consolidation proceeding is pending in the village in question, as such the petitioner should avail remedy before Consolidation Court rather writ petition before this Court.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that plot no. 130 is out side Consolidation operation and plot no. 124 is within Consolidation operation.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by State will be relevant, which is as under:- "That the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition are matters of record and averments contrary to record are not admitted, hence denied. In reply it is submitted here that the according the revenue records of Village Tajuddinpur Pargana and Tehsil Mariyahu District Jaunpur, the gata no. 124M area 0.445 Hect is recorded in the revenue record jointly in the name of petitioner Paras Nath son of Harideen, Sugriv, Vishram sons of Bode Mevwalal, Munshi Lal sons of Chinigi, Sabhagjeet, Brijlal sons of Kaloo, Agar Doodhnath sons of Laloo, Kailashi Devi wife of Sagar, Suraj son of Sagar Munni Lal, Ram Vilas sons of Banwani, Bachchan Babu sons of Gangadhari, Bholenath (Mitthu), Omprakash sons of Lalmani, Amiriti widow of Lalmani, Paras Nath son of Harideen, Triveni son of Lalji Hawaldar, Rajbahadur, Rajesh Harinath resident of same village. The Gata No. 130 area 0.206 Hectare of Khata No. 202 recorded in the revenue record jointly in the name of petitioner Paras Nath son of Harideen and Sugriv, Vishram sons of Bode Mewalal, Munni Lal sons of Chingi Sabhajeet, Brijlal sons of Kaloo Agar, Doodhnath sons of Laloo, Kailashi Devi wife of Sagar Suraj son of Sagar Munni Lal, Ram Vilas sons of Banwari, Bachchan, Babu sons of Gangadhari, Bholenath, Radhey Shyam (Mitthu) Om Prakash sons of Lalmani, Amiriti widow of Lalmani, Paras nath sons of Hari Deen, Triveni son of Lalji, Hawaldar, Ratti Lal, Amrit Lal, Brijesh sons of Chotelal, Prabhawati Devi wife of Chote Lal resident of same village. The gata No. 124 and 130 are joint holding in the name of petitioner and the respondents and no partition took place. The petitioner filed an application under Section 5-C of U.P.C.H. Act seeking permission for raising construction. The respondent namely Chote Lal and others filed an objection against the application filed by the petitioner and the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 03.08.2019 passed order and restrained to the petitioner for raising construction over gata no. 130 as no notification under Section 9 was published in the area. It is further submitted that now on 21.03.2023, the notification under Section 9 has been published and after spot inspection, the gata no. 130 has been expunged from the consolidation proceeding and the valuation of the said gata has not been fixed. At present, the gata no. 124 and 130 are being used by the petitioner as well as respondents as Abadi land. It is further submitted that since the gata no. 130 was the joint holding of the petitioner and other co-tenure holders and the land being gata no. 130 was not exclusive land of the petitioner, hence the petitioner was raising illegal construction."

10. A perusal of the paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the State fully demonstrates that plot no. 130 is out side the Consolidation operation (CH-18), as such there was no occasion to pass the impugned orders in respect to plot no. 130 .

11. Miscellaneous Application filed by the private respondents cannot be entertained and allowed by the Consolidation authorities, so far as plot no. 130 is concerned.

12. Perusal of C.H. Form-2A annexed as annexure no. SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.05.2025 filed by State also demonstrate that plot no. 130 is C.H.-18.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 03.08.2019 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, orders dated 05.08.2019 and 04.12.2019 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside so far as it relates to plot no. 130. The writ petition stands allowed in part in respect to plot no. 130.

14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad