Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3315 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Additional District Magistrate And 6 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ram Mangal Singh, Sarveshwar Singh : C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh, Satendra Kumar Singh, Vimal Kumar Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Legal Reasoning
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has divided the share under the order dated 22.4.2017 but on the restoration application filed after about two months from the date of the order dated 22.4.2017, the order dated 22.4.2017 has been set aside and the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been restored on its original number. 7. Under Rule 26 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules), the provision has been made for deciding the dispute under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. Perusal of Rule 26 (2) of U.P.C.H. Rule will be relevant which is as under :- "26(2). On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the point in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections." 8. In the instant matter, the case under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been decided by the Consolidation Officer without framing issues etc., as such, there is no illegality in the order of Consolidation Officer restoring the proceeding on its original number to decide the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on merit in accordance with law. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on merit after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 1, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4/ Consolidation Committee and Mr. Satyendra Bhushan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"), Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.4.2017 divided the share of the parties in respect to plot of Khata no.25. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.4.2017, a restoration application has been filed by respondent no.6 on 23.6.2017. Against the restoration application filed on behalf of respondent no.6, an objection has been filed on behalf of the petitioner that restoration application at the instance of respondent no.6 is not maintainable as respondent no.6 has no locus to file restoration application being son of Brij Bhushan Lal as mentioned in the restoration application dated 23.6.2017. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. writ of certiorari order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders dated 1.2.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer 4.8.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 27.6.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. ii. writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issue directing the opposite parties not to interfere in any manner what so ever relating to the 2 WRIB No. 3315 of 2025 property gata no.671." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Consolidation Officer under the impugned order has allowed the restoration application in arbitrary manner without considering the objection of the petitioner and restored the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number. He further submitted that restoring the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on misconceived ground. He further placed the order dated 2.6.2005 passed by the Tahsildar in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 in order to demonstrate that there is no illegality in the order deciding the share of the share holder under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to Khata no.25. He further submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and the restoration application filed by respondent no.6 should be rejected. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been decided in arbitrary manner without framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He further submitted that as soon as respondent no.6 came to know about the order passed by respondent no.3 / Consolidation Officer depriving the interest of the petitioner in the plot in question, the restoration application has been filed after about two months from the date of the order. He further submitted that in the restoration application the father's name has been wrongly mentioned as Brij Bhushan Lal in place of Lal Man. He further submitted that the Consolidation Officer has restored the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act for decision of title dispute on merit after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He further submitted that the appeal and revision filed by petitioner has been rightly been dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3 WRIB No. 3315 of 2025