Ramnath v. Lakhrani others) passed D.D.C. Ghazipur and order dated

1.Heard Mr. Mir Sayed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Gram Sabha and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sonkar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an agricultural lease was executed in favour of Sundar on 19.01.1973 in respect to plot No.144 area 0.156 hectare. Sundar had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.05.2002. On the basis of registered sale deed, respondent No.6 was accordingly recorded in the revenue records. One complaint was filed in respect to the plot in question by which entry of respondent No.6 has been expunged on 19.02.2010. Respondent No.6 filed restoration application against the order dated 19.02.2010 accordingly restoration application was allowed setting aside the order dated 19.02.2010 and basic year entry of plot No. 144 (Khata No.552) was maintained by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.04.2010. Against the order dated 15.04.2010, a time barred appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by petitioner along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 18.12.2014 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as well as on the ground of limitation recording the finding of fact that plot in question was not recorded as Jungle even in khatauni of 1356 and 1359 fasli. Restoration application filed against the appellate order dated 18.12.2014 was dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2016. Revision under 2 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 02.12.2024 hence this petition for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 in Revision No.0043 of 2016 (Ramnath Vs. Lakhrani & others) passed D.D.C. Ghazipur and order dated 18.12.2014 and 23.05.2016 in Appeal No.1410 (Ramnath Vs. Lakhrani) passed by S.O.C. Ghazipur, as well as order dated

15.04.2010 (State of U.P. V. Lakhrani) passed by C.O. Ghazipur. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to record the above land of Gata No.144/0.156 (new Gata No.772 area 0.156 hectare) as forest land in the revenue records."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question comes under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act as such no right will accrue in favour of respondent No.6. He submitted that consolidation authorities have illegally dismissed the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner without considering the case as set up in appeal and revision. He submitted that in view of the earlier entry of the plot in question, lease, if any, executed in favour of Sundar cannot be relied upon. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and plot in question should be recorded as Jungle in the revenue record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that lease executed in the year 1973 in favour of Sunder has not been challenged by any body in the appropriate proceeding as such entry of the plot in question cannot be challenged during consolidation operation on the basis of private complaint. He further submitted that Sunder executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.05.2002 and respondent No.6 remained recorded over the plot in question, as such proceeding on the basis of private complaint cannot be initiated to expunge the basic year entry of the plot in question. He submitted that order passed on the basis of complaint expunging the entry of the plot in question has been rightly recalled by consolidation officer and basic year entry was maintained by the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that Gaon Sabha and State has not challenged the order or entry of the plot in 3 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 question, as such highly time barred appeal filed on behalf of petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in proper manner. He submitted that no interference is required at the instance of the petitioner against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities.

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

6. There is no dispute about the fact that Sundar remained recorded over the plot in question on the basis of agricultural lease executed in the year 1973 and Sunder had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.05.2002. There is also no dispute about the fact that basic year entry was not challenged by anybody in accordance with law but on the basis of the private complaint, the entry of plot in question was expunged. There is also no dispute about the fact that on restoration application filed by respondent No.6 the basic year entry of plot No. 144 (Khata No.552) was maintained by Consolidation Officer vide order dated

15.04.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact the time barred appeal filed by petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has been dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2014. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2024.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of order dated 18.12.2014 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghazipur will be relevant, which is as under:- न्यायालय बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी गाजीपुर अपील संख्या-1410 धारा 11 (1) जो०चoअ० बनाम मोजा-रानीपुर, परगना-पचोतर, िजला-गाजीपुर िनणर्य 4 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 प्ष गण के िव्षान अिधव्वाओं की बहस सुनी गयी एवं प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया गया। प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक आधार वषर् के खाता 413 में गाटा सख्या 144 रकबा 0- ंदर पु्ऴ घुरहू एव अन्य लोगों की नाम दजर् है। लखराजी स््ऴी टीमल ने गाटा सख्या144 12-6 सु रकबा 156 का पंजीकृ त बैनामा 13.05.02 को लेकर कािबज दािखल हुयी और स०चoअ० के आदेश िदनाक 06.07.2002 ्षारा इनका नाम दजर् हो गया। गाटा संख्या 144 पुरानी गाटा संख्या 590 से बना है। पहली चकबन्दी के आधार वषर् में गाटा संख्या 590/2 रकबा 2-10-0 रामदेव पु्ऴ लग्गन के नाम दजर् है। इसी खातेदार स०चoअ० के आदेश िदनाक 26.06.1962 ्षारा रामदेव नाम के साथ भूखन आिद बतौर सहखातेदार अिकत हुये। पहली चकबन्दी के दौरान गाटा संख्या 590 रकबा 1-14-15 चकबन्दी ्ऺिति्वया से पृथक िकया गया तथा शेष रकबो की मािलयत लगायी गयीं। यह रकबा रामदेव के चक में ्ऺिद्ि न होकर बचत के रूप में दजर् हुआ। पूवर् चकबन्दी बन्दोबस्त आकार प्ऴ 40 में गाटा संख्या 590 रकबा 2-7-1 से नई गाटा संख्या 144 बना और जो०चoआ० प्ऴ 41 में िबना िकसी आदेश के नई गाटा संख्या 144 के रकबा 1-14-15 एवं 144 क रकबा 0-12-6 िवशेष िववरण के कालम ने िबना िकसी आदेश के जंगल िलख िदया गया, जो गलत है एवं फ़जर् इन््शाज है। पूवर् चकबन्दी का 2 ए का अवलोकन िकया गया िजसमें गाटा संख्या 590 के 19 बटे बने हुये हैं . जो िकसी भी बटे में जंगल अिकत नहीं है। 1359 फसली वतीनी खाता संख्या 170 जंगल का दािखल िकया गया है। उसमे गाटा संख्या 590 में कोई जंगल नहीं है। इस ्ऺकार इन सब साष्यों से यह स्प्ि है िक गाटा सख्या 590 जंगल खाता में 1356 फसली एवं 1359 फसली में जंगल के खाते में दजर् नहीं थे। अपने साष्य के समथर्न में ्ऺितवादी ्षारा नकल खतौनी 1359 एवं 1360 फसली एवं अन्य सबूत एवं आकार प्ऴ 2 ए ्षाम रानीपुर का दािखल िकया गया है। इससे स्प्ि है िक यह जमीन कभी जंगल के खाते की नहीं रहीं है। अत चकबन्दी अिधकारी ्षारा आदेश पािरत िकया गया उसमें िकसी हस्त्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अतः अपील बलहीन होने के कारण पोषणीयता िमयाद एवं बलहीन होने के कारण खािरज की जाती है। उपरो्वानुसार अपील िनरस्त की जाती है। प्ऴावली वाद अमल दरामद दािखल दफ्तर हो। आदेश संजय ्शीवास्तव बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी गाजीपुर।

8. Perusal of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as 5 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 quoted above fully demonstrate that plot in question was not recorded as Jungle even in the khatauni of 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli as such the basic year entry of the plot in question cannot be expunged on the basis of private complaint.

9. Considering the facts that plot in question was not recorded as jungle in Khatauni of 1356 fasali and 1359 fasli as well as agricultural lease executed in the year 1973 in favour of Sundar has not been challenged as provided under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such basic year entry cannot be expunged on the basis of the complaint of that private party. The State and Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection, appeal, revision in respect to plot in question nor initiated any proceeding in respect to the sale deed executed in faovur of the respondent No.6 by Sundar, as such as there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities.

10. No interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India.

11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly . September 1, 2025 PS*/Vandana (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1.Heard Mr. Mir Sayed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Gram Sabha and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sonkar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an agricultural lease was executed in favour of Sundar on 19.01.1973 in respect to plot No.144 area 0.156 hectare. Sundar had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.05.2002. On the basis of registered sale deed, respondent No.6 was accordingly recorded in the revenue records. One complaint was filed in respect to the plot in question by which entry of respondent No.6 has been expunged on 19.02.2010. Respondent No.6 filed restoration application against the order dated 19.02.2010 accordingly restoration application was allowed setting aside the order dated 19.02.2010 and basic year entry of plot No. 144 (Khata No.552) was maintained by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.04.2010. Against the order dated 15.04.2010, a time barred appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by petitioner along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 18.12.2014 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as well as on the ground of limitation recording the finding of fact that plot in question was not recorded as Jungle even in khatauni of 1356 and 1359 fasli. Restoration application filed against the appellate order dated 18.12.2014 was dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2016. Revision under 2 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 02.12.2024 hence this petition for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 in Revision No.0043 of 2016 (Ramnath Vs. Lakhrani & others) passed D.D.C. Ghazipur and order dated 18.12.2014 and 23.05.2016 in Appeal No.1410 (Ramnath Vs. Lakhrani) passed by S.O.C. Ghazipur, as well as order dated

15.04.2010 (State of U.P. V. Lakhrani) passed by C.O. Ghazipur. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to record the above land of Gata No.144/0.156 (new Gata No.772 area 0.156 hectare) as forest land in the revenue records."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question comes under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act as such no right will accrue in favour of respondent No.6. He submitted that consolidation authorities have illegally dismissed the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner without considering the case as set up in appeal and revision. He submitted that in view of the earlier entry of the plot in question, lease, if any, executed in favour of Sundar cannot be relied upon. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and plot in question should be recorded as Jungle in the revenue record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that lease executed in the year 1973 in favour of Sunder has not been challenged by any body in the appropriate proceeding as such entry of the plot in question cannot be challenged during consolidation operation on the basis of private complaint. He further submitted that Sunder executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.05.2002 and respondent No.6 remained recorded over the plot in question, as such proceeding on the basis of private complaint cannot be initiated to expunge the basic year entry of the plot in question. He submitted that order passed on the basis of complaint expunging the entry of the plot in question has been rightly recalled by consolidation officer and basic year entry was maintained by the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that Gaon Sabha and State has not challenged the order or entry of the plot in 3 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 question, as such highly time barred appeal filed on behalf of petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in proper manner. He submitted that no interference is required at the instance of the petitioner against the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities.

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

6. There is no dispute about the fact that Sundar remained recorded over the plot in question on the basis of agricultural lease executed in the year 1973 and Sunder had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.05.2002. There is also no dispute about the fact that basic year entry was not challenged by anybody in accordance with law but on the basis of the private complaint, the entry of plot in question was expunged. There is also no dispute about the fact that on restoration application filed by respondent No.6 the basic year entry of plot No. 144 (Khata No.552) was maintained by Consolidation Officer vide order dated

15.04.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact the time barred appeal filed by petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has been dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2014. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2024.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of order dated 18.12.2014 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghazipur will be relevant, which is as under:- न्यायालय बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी गाजीपुर अपील संख्या-1410 धारा 11 (1) जो०चoअ० बनाम मोजा-रानीपुर, परगना-पचोतर, िजला-गाजीपुर िनणर्य 4 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 प्ष गण के िव्षान अिधव्वाओं की बहस सुनी गयी एवं प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया गया। प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक आधार वषर् के खाता 413 में गाटा सख्या 144 रकबा 0- ंदर पु्ऴ घुरहू एव अन्य लोगों की नाम दजर् है। लखराजी स््ऴी टीमल ने गाटा सख्या144 12-6 सु रकबा 156 का पंजीकृ त बैनामा 13.05.02 को लेकर कािबज दािखल हुयी और स०चoअ० के आदेश िदनाक 06.07.2002 ्षारा इनका नाम दजर् हो गया। गाटा संख्या 144 पुरानी गाटा संख्या 590 से बना है। पहली चकबन्दी के आधार वषर् में गाटा संख्या 590/2 रकबा 2-10-0 रामदेव पु्ऴ लग्गन के नाम दजर् है। इसी खातेदार स०चoअ० के आदेश िदनाक 26.06.1962 ्षारा रामदेव नाम के साथ भूखन आिद बतौर सहखातेदार अिकत हुये। पहली चकबन्दी के दौरान गाटा संख्या 590 रकबा 1-14-15 चकबन्दी ्ऺिति्वया से पृथक िकया गया तथा शेष रकबो की मािलयत लगायी गयीं। यह रकबा रामदेव के चक में ्ऺिद्ि न होकर बचत के रूप में दजर् हुआ। पूवर् चकबन्दी बन्दोबस्त आकार प्ऴ 40 में गाटा संख्या 590 रकबा 2-7-1 से नई गाटा संख्या 144 बना और जो०चoआ० प्ऴ 41 में िबना िकसी आदेश के नई गाटा संख्या 144 के रकबा 1-14-15 एवं 144 क रकबा 0-12-6 िवशेष िववरण के कालम ने िबना िकसी आदेश के जंगल िलख िदया गया, जो गलत है एवं फ़जर् इन््शाज है। पूवर् चकबन्दी का 2 ए का अवलोकन िकया गया िजसमें गाटा संख्या 590 के 19 बटे बने हुये हैं . जो िकसी भी बटे में जंगल अिकत नहीं है। 1359 फसली वतीनी खाता संख्या 170 जंगल का दािखल िकया गया है। उसमे गाटा संख्या 590 में कोई जंगल नहीं है। इस ्ऺकार इन सब साष्यों से यह स्प्ि है िक गाटा सख्या 590 जंगल खाता में 1356 फसली एवं 1359 फसली में जंगल के खाते में दजर् नहीं थे। अपने साष्य के समथर्न में ्ऺितवादी ्षारा नकल खतौनी 1359 एवं 1360 फसली एवं अन्य सबूत एवं आकार प्ऴ 2 ए ्षाम रानीपुर का दािखल िकया गया है। इससे स्प्ि है िक यह जमीन कभी जंगल के खाते की नहीं रहीं है। अत चकबन्दी अिधकारी ्षारा आदेश पािरत िकया गया उसमें िकसी हस्त्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अतः अपील बलहीन होने के कारण पोषणीयता िमयाद एवं बलहीन होने के कारण खािरज की जाती है। उपरो्वानुसार अपील िनरस्त की जाती है। प्ऴावली वाद अमल दरामद दािखल दफ्तर हो। आदेश संजय ्शीवास्तव बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी गाजीपुर।

8. Perusal of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as 5 WRIB No. 3112 of 2025 quoted above fully demonstrate that plot in question was not recorded as Jungle even in the khatauni of 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli as such the basic year entry of the plot in question cannot be expunged on the basis of private complaint.

9. Considering the facts that plot in question was not recorded as jungle in Khatauni of 1356 fasali and 1359 fasli as well as agricultural lease executed in the year 1973 in favour of Sundar has not been challenged as provided under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such basic year entry cannot be expunged on the basis of the complaint of that private party. The State and Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection, appeal, revision in respect to plot in question nor initiated any proceeding in respect to the sale deed executed in faovur of the respondent No.6 by Sundar, as such as there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities.

10. No interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India.

11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly . September 1, 2025 PS*/Vandana (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad