Mohd. Salim and others v. Mohd. Sakil and Others) pending before Consolidation Officer Naugarh District Si
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58418 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1466 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd Sakil And Another Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidation/District Magistrate And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of the plot in question an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed for co-tenancy along with respondent nos.4 & 5. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Case No.1276 and consolidation vide order dated 4.7.2000 allowed the aforementioned title objection filed by petitioners for co-tenancy. Respondent no.4 filed an application dated 27.8.2008 along with prayer for condonation of delay to recall the order dated 4.7.2000. Respondent no.4 filed a transfer application to transfer the restoration proceeding. Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the transfer application vide order dated 16.10.2010 transferring the proceeding from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar to the Court of Consolidation Officer, Soharatgarh Camp, Naugarh, Siddharth Nagar. Respondent no.4 again filed a transfer application which was allowed vide order dated 31.5.2013 and transferred the proceeding from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Naugarh to the Court of Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.7.2021
Facts
passed the order dividing share of the parties. Appeal alleged to be filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.1.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Revision filed by respondent no.4 against the order dated 26.7.2021 was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 13.12.2022 and matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer, Naugarh, which is still pending. Petitioners challenged the revisional order dated 13.12.2022 before this Court through Writ- B No.275 of 2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.2.2023, accordingly, proceeding has started before Consolidation Officer. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs: "i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quashed the entire proceeding of Case No.954 under Section 9-A (2) (new allotted case nos.186/2024, under Section 9A (2) Mohd. Salim and others vs. Mohd. Sakil and Others) pending before Consolidation Officer Naugarh District Siddharth Nagar. ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 not to interfere in share of petitioner which is finalized by the order dated 4.7.2000 of Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj passed in Case No.1276 under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act relating to village Matesar Nankar, Tappa Karhi, Tahsil- Itwa, District- Siddharthnagar." 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the order dated 4.7.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, the instant proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is abuse of process of law, as such, the pending proceeding should be quashed. He further submitted that against the revisional order dated 13.12.2022, writ petition filed by petitioners has been dismissed but petitioners cannot be stopped to raise legal plea regarding maintainability of the proceeding by way of instant petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submitted that Writ-B No.275 of 2023 filed by petitioners against the revisional order dated 13.12.2022 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2023, as such, instant writ petition challenging the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be entertained.
Legal Reasoning
6. There is no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the remand order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Writ-B No.275 of 2023 filed by petitioners was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2023 affirming the revisional order dated 13.12.2022 by which matter was remanded back before the Consolidation Officer. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant portion of the order dated 15.2.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-B No.275 of 2023 will be relevant which is as under: " Case :- WRIT - B No. - 275 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohammad Shakeel And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naseem Ahmad,Devendra Kumar Patel,Varchasva Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alauddin .............. So far as the entitlement of the petitioners being a son of Yakoob is concerned, matter is still subjudiced before the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which parties were relegated before the Consolidation Officer to get their right and title adjudicated upon in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Nothing has been decided finally by impugned order dated 13.12.2022 with respect to the right and title of the parties over the property in question. Parties have fully opportunity to defend their respective cases before the Consolidation Officer by adducing evidence in support of their respective cases. In this conspectus as above, I did not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned remand order dated 13.12.2022 relegating the parties before the Consolidation Officer with definite finding that order passed by the Consolidation Officer was without any corroborative evidence and without deposition of the witnesses. Finding of fact returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation, pointing out discrepancies in order of Consolidation Oficer, has not been rebutted by the petitioner
Arguments
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, State Counsel and perused the records.
Decision
in the writ petition. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how petitioners are prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to them, owing to the order impugned. There is no illegality, perversity and the ambiguity in the remand order under challenge passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to the costs. " 8. Considering the earlier order of this Court dated 15.2.2023 passed in Writ- B No.275 of 2023 as quoted above by which this Court has held that the matter has been rightly remanded before the Consolidation Officer for adjudication of the title dispute, the instant petition challenging the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be entertained by this Court. 9. No interference is required in the matter. 10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad