Narendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors.

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shyam Sunder, learned counsel for private respondent no.8 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act, an order dated 13.12.1988 was passed by Consolidation Officer for recording the names of respondent nos. 6 and 7 (Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar) over plot Nos. 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601 area 9 bighas 5 biswa. Against the order dated 13.12.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer, highly time barred appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by petitioner on 6.2.2023 (with delay of 35 years). The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.3.2023 dismissed the aforementioned appeal. Petitioner filed revision against the appellate order dated 23.3.2023 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act as well as State has also filed revision against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.12.1988. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 14.2.2025 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner but revision filed by State was allowed setting aside the order dated 13.12.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as directed that plot in question be recorded in the name of respondent no.8/ Ashok Kumar Jain. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 14.2.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Saharanpur dismissing the revision No. 423 of 2023, computerized case No. 202354096000000423 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Dharm Pal Singh) and allowing the revision No. 333 of 2024, computerized case No. 202454096000000333 (State of U.P. through D.G.C. (Revenue) Vs. Rajeev Kumar and Others) by common order dated 14.2.2025 and the order dated 23.3.2023 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation Saharanpur in appeal No. 229 under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order passed by Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur dated 13.12.1988 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in case No. 3513."

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities are wholly illegal in view of the order passed by prescribed authority in respect to plot in question under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act. He further submitted that time barred title appeal filed by petitioner cannot be dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in view of the provision contained under Section 11 (C) of the U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that title proceeding should be decided on merit rather on technical grounds. He further submitted that Gaon Sabha, State and D.G.C. (Revenue) are in collusion with private respondents, as such, title appeal/ revision filed by petitioner being member of Gram Sabha cannot be dismissed on the ground of locus of the petitioner. He further submitted that name of respondent no.7/ Ashok Kumar Jain was wrongly recorded on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 27.3.1971 by Rajendra Kumar (father of respondent nos. 6 and 7) in favour of respondent no.7/ Ashok Kumar Jain which is after the cut off date i.e. 24.1.1971 as prescribed under the Ceiling Act. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.7 submitted that highly time barred title appeal filed by petitioner who has no locus to file appeal has rightly been dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and appellate order has rightly been maintained in revision filed by petitioner. He submitted that title revision filed by State has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, petitioner has no locus to challenge the orders passed by consolidation authorities. He placed reliance upon the following judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his argument:- "(i) 2017 SCC Online SC 211 Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Another Vs. Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Others (ii) AIR 2023 SC 4314 Vasant Nature Cure Hospital and Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust and Others Vs. Ukaji Ramaji-Since Deceased Through his Legal Heirs and Another"

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

There is no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.12.1988 directed to record the name of respondent nos. 6 and 7 over the plot in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that time barred appeal (with delay of 35 years) filed by petitioner was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.3.2023 which has been maintained in revision under impugned order dated 14.2.2025. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by State against the order dated 13.12.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the order dated 13.12.1988 and plot in question has been ordered to be recorded in the name of respondent no.8.

So far as filing of time barred appeal and revision at the instance of petitioner is concern, the same cannot be entertained as held under the impugned orders that petitioner is neither tenure holder of the plot in question nor claiming any personal right in the plot in question rather State has himself filed a title revision against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.12.1988 which has been allowed and basic year entry of the plot has been maintained, as such, State can further challenge the impugned order passed by consolidation authorities rather petitioner.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required at the instance of petitioner against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities in the title proceeding.