Counsel for v. Ashok Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Kaushal

2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai as well as Mr. Prajyot Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is heard finally without inviting counter affidavit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 323. Respondent no.6/ Israr is chak holder No. 105, respondent no.4, Shamshad Ahmad and respondent no.5, Jamshed Ahmad are holder holder No.5. The petitioner's original plots are 2664 area 0.0050 hectare having 1/8th share that is 0.0007 hectare, plot No. 219, 2167, 2169, 2170 total 25 plots area 0.9360 hectare. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to petitioner. The first chak was proposed at plot No. 2474 etc. and second chak was proposed at plot No. 2148 etc. Petitioner was satisfied from the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, as such, no objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Other chak holders filed chak objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act. The chak 2 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025 objections were decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated

6.1.2016 under Section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. By the aforementioned order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.2016, petitioner's chak was disturbed but petitioner did not file appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. The other chak holders filed appeal. All the appeals were clubbed and decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.3.2017 by which petitioner's chak was again modified. Petitioner was satisfied with the appellate order dated 23.3.2017. Delivery of possession of the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was taken place in the Village in question. Petitioner has developed his chak allotted to him at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and installed tubewell in the allotted plot. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed time barred appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.2016 in which petitioner was impleaded as respondent. The aforementioned appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated

17.8.2019. Against the appellate order dated 17.8.2019, respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed revision along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act before the deputy director of consolidation which was registered as revision No. 145. Another revision filed by respondent no.10, Mohammad Rafi against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation was registered as revision No. 147. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard together. The aforementioned revisions were decided vide order dated 12.10.2020 modifying the chak of the chak holders but petitioner's chak was not modified vide order dated

12.10.2020. Respondent no.3, Talib Hassan (chak holder No. 233) filed a restoration application against the order dated 12.10.2020 which has been allowed vide order dated 8.1.2021 restoring the revision Nos. 145 and 147 to their original number. In the aforementioned revision, notice was issued to the opposite parties and deputy director of consolidation decided the revision No. 145 and 147 modifying the chak of petitioner and other chak holders. Petitioner filed restoration application dated 20.3.2021 against the order dated 12.3.2021 along with stay application. In the restoration application, petitioner stated that authority should make spot inspection before passing any order. Respondent no.6, Israr also filed restoration application against the order dated 12.3.2021. On the aforesaid restoration application, an interim order was passed by deputy director of 3 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025 consolidation directing the parties to maintain status. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.7.2025 allowed restoration application filed by respondent no.6, Israr and rejected the restoration application filed by petitioner- Mohammad Aalam. Hence this petition for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record of the case and quash the order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar in restoration case no. 170RT under Section 48(1) of U.P. Condolidation of Holdings Act (Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Sandeep and others) and also the order dated 12.3.2021 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Muzaffarnagar modified the chak of the petitioner alongwith other chak holders on a restoration application filed by Talib Hasan against the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, which was registered as restoration case no. 0019/2021."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order dated

12.3.2021 and 18.7.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation are wholly illegal and against the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that petitioner was allotted compact chak by the appellate Court/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2017 and petitioner has levelled his allotted chak as well as installed tubewell in the allotted chak but deputy director of consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak without considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in proper manner. He further submitted that under the impugned order, petitioner has been allotted six corner chak which is against the provisions contained under Section 19 (1) (g) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that restoration application filed by respondent no.6/ Israr has been allowed under the impugned order while restoration application of the petitioner has been rejected without considering the case of petitioner as set up in the restoration application. He submitted that unfertile land has been allotted to petitioner under the impugned order which is wholly illegal. He submitted that impugned orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. 4 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025

6. On the other hand, learned counsels for respondent nos. 4 and 6 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed in the allotment of chak proceeding. They further submitted that chak holders have rightly been adjusted on their chak under the impugned order. They further submitted that restoration application filed by petitioner as well as respondent no.6 has properly been decided by deputy director of consolidation which requires no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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 impugned orders have been passed in allotment of chak proceeding by deputy director of consolidation.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:- "every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units."

10. It will be relevant to mention that petitioner was allotted chak by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2017 which was compact in nature. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak and allotted him 6 corner chak which is against the provisions contained under Section 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act.

11. It is also relevant to mention that comparative hardship of the petitioner has not properly been considered by the deputy director of consolidation while rejecting the restoration application filed by petitioner under the impugned order dated 18.7.2025. It is also relevant to mention that by the same order, the restoration application filed by respondent no.6, Israr has been allowed and the restoration application filed by petitioner has been rejected which is not proper exercise of jurisdiction by the deputy director of consolidation while deciding the restoration application. 5 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18.7.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar, respondent no.2 in restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed in part. The restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is restored to its original number. Respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar is directed to decide the restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in proper manner taking into consideration that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allotted the compact chak to the petitioner in the year 2017 which has been developed by the petitioner by installing tubewell in the same. Deputy Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar, respondent no.2 shall decide the restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act issuing notice to all the parties whose interest will be affected in any manner expeditiously preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It is further directed that till the disposal of restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in question. September 12, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai as well as Mr. Prajyot Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is heard finally without inviting counter affidavit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 323. Respondent no.6/ Israr is chak holder No. 105, respondent no.4, Shamshad Ahmad and respondent no.5, Jamshed Ahmad are holder holder No.5. The petitioner's original plots are 2664 area 0.0050 hectare having 1/8th share that is 0.0007 hectare, plot No. 219, 2167, 2169, 2170 total 25 plots area 0.9360 hectare. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed two chaks to petitioner. The first chak was proposed at plot No. 2474 etc. and second chak was proposed at plot No. 2148 etc. Petitioner was satisfied from the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, as such, no objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Other chak holders filed chak objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act. The chak 2 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025 objections were decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated

6.1.2016 under Section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. By the aforementioned order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.2016, petitioner's chak was disturbed but petitioner did not file appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. The other chak holders filed appeal. All the appeals were clubbed and decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 23.3.2017 by which petitioner's chak was again modified. Petitioner was satisfied with the appellate order dated 23.3.2017. Delivery of possession of the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was taken place in the Village in question. Petitioner has developed his chak allotted to him at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and installed tubewell in the allotted plot. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed time barred appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.2016 in which petitioner was impleaded as respondent. The aforementioned appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated

17.8.2019. Against the appellate order dated 17.8.2019, respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed revision along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act before the deputy director of consolidation which was registered as revision No. 145. Another revision filed by respondent no.10, Mohammad Rafi against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation was registered as revision No. 147. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard together. The aforementioned revisions were decided vide order dated 12.10.2020 modifying the chak of the chak holders but petitioner's chak was not modified vide order dated

12.10.2020. Respondent no.3, Talib Hassan (chak holder No. 233) filed a restoration application against the order dated 12.10.2020 which has been allowed vide order dated 8.1.2021 restoring the revision Nos. 145 and 147 to their original number. In the aforementioned revision, notice was issued to the opposite parties and deputy director of consolidation decided the revision No. 145 and 147 modifying the chak of petitioner and other chak holders. Petitioner filed restoration application dated 20.3.2021 against the order dated 12.3.2021 along with stay application. In the restoration application, petitioner stated that authority should make spot inspection before passing any order. Respondent no.6, Israr also filed restoration application against the order dated 12.3.2021. On the aforesaid restoration application, an interim order was passed by deputy director of 3 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025 consolidation directing the parties to maintain status. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.7.2025 allowed restoration application filed by respondent no.6, Israr and rejected the restoration application filed by petitioner- Mohammad Aalam. Hence this petition for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record of the case and quash the order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar in restoration case no. 170RT under Section 48(1) of U.P. Condolidation of Holdings Act (Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Sandeep and others) and also the order dated 12.3.2021 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Muzaffarnagar modified the chak of the petitioner alongwith other chak holders on a restoration application filed by Talib Hasan against the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation, which was registered as restoration case no. 0019/2021."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order dated

12.3.2021 and 18.7.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation are wholly illegal and against the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that petitioner was allotted compact chak by the appellate Court/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2017 and petitioner has levelled his allotted chak as well as installed tubewell in the allotted chak but deputy director of consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak without considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in proper manner. He further submitted that under the impugned order, petitioner has been allotted six corner chak which is against the provisions contained under Section 19 (1) (g) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that restoration application filed by respondent no.6/ Israr has been allowed under the impugned order while restoration application of the petitioner has been rejected without considering the case of petitioner as set up in the restoration application. He submitted that unfertile land has been allotted to petitioner under the impugned order which is wholly illegal. He submitted that impugned orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained. 4 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025

6. On the other hand, learned counsels for respondent nos. 4 and 6 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed in the allotment of chak proceeding. They further submitted that chak holders have rightly been adjusted on their chak under the impugned order. They further submitted that restoration application filed by petitioner as well as respondent no.6 has properly been decided by deputy director of consolidation which requires no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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 impugned orders have been passed in allotment of chak proceeding by deputy director of consolidation.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which is as under:- "every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted chaks in conformity with the process of rectangulation in rectangulation units."

10. It will be relevant to mention that petitioner was allotted chak by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2017 which was compact in nature. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has disturbed the petitioner's chak and allotted him 6 corner chak which is against the provisions contained under Section 19 (1)(g) of U.P.C.H. Act.

11. It is also relevant to mention that comparative hardship of the petitioner has not properly been considered by the deputy director of consolidation while rejecting the restoration application filed by petitioner under the impugned order dated 18.7.2025. It is also relevant to mention that by the same order, the restoration application filed by respondent no.6, Israr has been allowed and the restoration application filed by petitioner has been rejected which is not proper exercise of jurisdiction by the deputy director of consolidation while deciding the restoration application. 5 WRIB No. 3620 of 2025

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18.7.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar, respondent no.2 in restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed in part. The restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is restored to its original number. Respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar is directed to decide the restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in proper manner taking into consideration that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allotted the compact chak to the petitioner in the year 2017 which has been developed by the petitioner by installing tubewell in the same. Deputy Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar, respondent no.2 shall decide the restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act issuing notice to all the parties whose interest will be affected in any manner expeditiously preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It is further directed that till the disposal of restoration case No. 170 RT under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in question. September 12, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad