Fahim Ahmad v. Idrish) by

1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Land Management Committee as respondent no.5 and serve the copy of the same upon Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey during course of the day.

2. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.4 by Mr. Ravindra Prasad, Advocate is taken on record.

3. Heard Mr. Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5/ Land Management Committee.

4. Brief facts of the case are that Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.4.2002 ordered for recording the certain plots as general abadi. An objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.4 was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.6.2011. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 18.6.2011, appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha which was registered as appeal No. 33/301 of 2012-13. The aforementioned appeal filed by Gram Sabha was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2014 setting aside the order dated 18.6.2011 as well as remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act afresh. One appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.4 which was registered as appeal No.2022541359000011 under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act.The aforementioned appeal filed by respondent no.4 was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2022 after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act modifying the order dated 29.4.2002 to the effect that plot No. 1352 area 0.250 hectare which was reserved as general abadi was set aside and earlier entry was maintained. The aforementioned order passed on 23.2.2022. Against the appellate order dated 23.2.2022, restoration application was filed by respondent no.4 which has been decided under the order dated 4.10.2023 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation modifying the earlier order dated 23.2.2022 to the effect that in place of plot No. 1352, plot No. 1064M area 0.146 hectare, plot No. 1606M area 0.010 hectare, plot No. 1343M area 0.177 hectare shall be reserved as general abadi. Against the order dated 4.10.2023, two revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act has been filed. One revision filed by Abdul Rauf was registered as revision No. 8 of 2025 and another revision filed by petitioner was registered as revision No. 6 of 2025. Both the aforementioned revisions were clubbed together and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.4.2025 dismissed both the revisions as not maintainable. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.4.2025 passed in revision No. 202554135000000006 (Fahim Ahmad Vs. Idrish) by respondent no.2 and impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2023 passed in appeal No. 1431/ 2022 (Idrish Vs. Shakir and others) and judgment and order dated 23.2.2022 passed in appeal No. 2022541359000011 (Indrish Vs. Shakir and others) by respondent no.3 respectively. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to change the nature of the general abadi or to allot the disputed land to landless villagers of the Village concerned."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed on behalf of petitioner was maintainable under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act in view of the averment made in the grounds of revision but Deputy Director of Consolidation has not properly exercised the revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the petitioner's revision. He submitted that appellate jurisdiction has been exercised in arbitrary manner shifting the plot for general abadi on the basis of time barred restoration application and revisional Court has failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in proper manner, as such, the impugned revisional order should be set aside and matter should be sent back before the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by Gaon Sabha was allowed after affording opportunity of hearing to the Gram Sabha. He submitted that there was no order for reserving another plot for general abadi in place of plot No. 1352, as such, on the basis of restoration application, the another plot was reserved for general abadi after submission of necessary report by the Gram Sabha, as such, the revision on behalf of the petitioner cannot be entertained against the appellate order. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the appellate jurisdiction was exercised after hearing the learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as Gram Sabha reserving the plot for general abadi in place of earlier plot which was reserved for general abadi. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable.

9. The perusal of the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation fully demonstrate that, the appellate jurisdiction was exercised after affording proper opportunity to the Gram Sabha as well as considering the report submitted by the Gram Sabha in the proceeding, as such, revision at the instance of the petitioner in respect to the plot in question cannot be entertained. There is no illegality in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction as well as the revisional jurisdiction.

10. No interference is required against the impugned order.

11. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Land Management Committee as respondent no.5 and serve the copy of the same upon Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey during course of the day.

2. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.4 by Mr. Ravindra Prasad, Advocate is taken on record.

3. Heard Mr. Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5/ Land Management Committee.

4. Brief facts of the case are that Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.4.2002 ordered for recording the certain plots as general abadi. An objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.4 was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.6.2011. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 18.6.2011, appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha which was registered as appeal No. 33/301 of 2012-13. The aforementioned appeal filed by Gram Sabha was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2014 setting aside the order dated 18.6.2011 as well as remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act afresh. One appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.4 which was registered as appeal No.2022541359000011 under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act.The aforementioned appeal filed by respondent no.4 was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2022 after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act modifying the order dated 29.4.2002 to the effect that plot No. 1352 area 0.250 hectare which was reserved as general abadi was set aside and earlier entry was maintained. The aforementioned order passed on 23.2.2022. Against the appellate order dated 23.2.2022, restoration application was filed by respondent no.4 which has been decided under the order dated 4.10.2023 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation modifying the earlier order dated 23.2.2022 to the effect that in place of plot No. 1352, plot No. 1064M area 0.146 hectare, plot No. 1606M area 0.010 hectare, plot No. 1343M area 0.177 hectare shall be reserved as general abadi. Against the order dated 4.10.2023, two revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act has been filed. One revision filed by Abdul Rauf was registered as revision No. 8 of 2025 and another revision filed by petitioner was registered as revision No. 6 of 2025. Both the aforementioned revisions were clubbed together and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.4.2025 dismissed both the revisions as not maintainable. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.4.2025 passed in revision No. 202554135000000006 (Fahim Ahmad Vs. Idrish) by respondent no.2 and impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2023 passed in appeal No. 1431/ 2022 (Idrish Vs. Shakir and others) and judgment and order dated 23.2.2022 passed in appeal No. 2022541359000011 (Indrish Vs. Shakir and others) by respondent no.3 respectively. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to change the nature of the general abadi or to allot the disputed land to landless villagers of the Village concerned."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed on behalf of petitioner was maintainable under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act in view of the averment made in the grounds of revision but Deputy Director of Consolidation has not properly exercised the revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the petitioner's revision. He submitted that appellate jurisdiction has been exercised in arbitrary manner shifting the plot for general abadi on the basis of time barred restoration application and revisional Court has failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in proper manner, as such, the impugned revisional order should be set aside and matter should be sent back before the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by Gaon Sabha was allowed after affording opportunity of hearing to the Gram Sabha. He submitted that there was no order for reserving another plot for general abadi in place of plot No. 1352, as such, on the basis of restoration application, the another plot was reserved for general abadi after submission of necessary report by the Gram Sabha, as such, the revision on behalf of the petitioner cannot be entertained against the appellate order. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the appellate jurisdiction was exercised after hearing the learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as Gram Sabha reserving the plot for general abadi in place of earlier plot which was reserved for general abadi. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable.

9. The perusal of the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation fully demonstrate that, the appellate jurisdiction was exercised after affording proper opportunity to the Gram Sabha as well as considering the report submitted by the Gram Sabha in the proceeding, as such, revision at the instance of the petitioner in respect to the plot in question cannot be entertained. There is no illegality in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction as well as the revisional jurisdiction.

10. No interference is required against the impugned order.

11. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad