Vijay Pratap v. Arundutt Pandey and others) under Section

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh as well as Sri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an order dated 08.05.1992 was alleged to have been passed by respondent no. 4/Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4189 in respect to plot no. 605M area 0.255 hectare for recording the name of Smt. Kalawati (mother of the petitioner) in the place of respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 on the basis of objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) filed by Smt. Kalawati on the basis of possession in respect to the plot in question. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have also filed an appeal on 22.04.2008 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 08.05.1992, which was registered as appeal no. 707. Respondent no. 7 has also filed an appeal on 16.12.2016 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 08.05.1992, which was registered as appeal no. 1171. Respondent no. 3-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur vide order dated 30.09.2019 allowed the appeal no. 707+1171 setting aside the order dated 08.05.1992 passed by Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act afresh on merit. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 30.09.2019 by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before respondent no. 2- Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2024 directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter, after inquiring into the record of the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act including Misal band Register as well as Goswara. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record and quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. .000/2022/377 Computerized Case No. 2022530531000002 (Vijay Pratap Versus Arundutt Pandey and others) under Section 48(1) U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 in appeal no. 707+1171 under Section 11(1) U.P.C.H. Act respectively. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have affirm the order dated 08.05.1992 passed by respondent no. 4. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award to cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. This Court has directed the Consolidation Officer to produce the record of the Case No. 4189 under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before this Court. In compliance of order of this Court report was submitted by District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the Court has found that report is not satisfactory accordingly, this Court summoned Collector, Gorakhpur fixing 24.01.2025. A personal affidavit has been filed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Gorakhpur, which is already on the record of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that objection filed by petitioner's mother under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was allowed vide order dated 08.05.1992 in proper manner. He further submitted that time barred appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by private respondent has been allowed and matter has been remanded back before the Consolidation Officer, which is abuse of process of law. He next submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case as set up in revision. He submitted that impugned revisional order dated 30.04.2024 as well as appellate order 30.09.2019 are liable to be set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.05.1992 should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for private respondents submitted that title appeal filed by private respondent has been allowed on the ground that the impugned order dated 08.05.1992 alleged to have been passed in Case No. 4189 is forged and fictitious, as such there was no illegality in the remand order dated 30.09.2019 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal. He further submitted that the petitioner as set up the case on the basis of possession, but no proof has been given by the petitioner regarding his possession. He next submitted that the order dated 08.05.1992 is mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 1, as such no right can be given to petitioner on the basis of alleged order dated 08.05.1992, which is mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 1 only. He submitted that no interference is required against the revisional order as well as appellate order as under the appellate order the matter has been remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh on merit.

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 title appeal filed by private respondents against the order dated 08.05.1992 was allowed setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.05.1992 and remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 30.09.2019 has been dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2024.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter a perusal of appellate order dated 30.09.2019 will be relevant, which is as under:- नययययलय बनददबसत अधधकयरर चकबनदर, गदरखपपर अपरल सस0-707-1171 व परगनय हववलर, . तहसरल सदर, जनपद-गदरखपपर असतगरत धयरय 11(1) उ०प० जद०च० अधध० बयबत ममजय- जसगल रयमगढ उरर चसवरर तपपय अरण दत आदद ……… बनयम-……. रदव दत …….बनयम- …... कलयवतर शरमतर कलयवतर दनणरय भयग 1 दयरय गयटय सस0-605 दम0/0-255 ममनव उभय पकक कव दवदयन अधधवकयगण कव तकरस कद सपनय तथय पतयवलर कय अवलदकन दकयय। मवरव पपवयरधधकयरर दयरय ददनयसक-16-5-2015 कद अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलर तलयश करयए जयनव हवतप चकबनदर अधधकयरर गदपलयपपर व रयजसव अदभलवखयगयर कद पतयचयर दकयय तथय चकबनदर अधधकयरर कद दनदरदशत दकयय दक वयदकगत धययन दवकर पतयवलर कक तलयश करयए। अवर नययययलय कव नययययलय धलदपक कक आखयय ददनयसक 5-6-2015 सव सपष हह दक अव नययययलय कक पतयवलर दयधखल दफतरर सपचर कक छयनबरन करनव पर पतयवलर कय असकन हदनय नहह पययय गयय तथय नययययलय धलदपक कद चयजर मम पयप नहह हह। इस पकयर सपष हह दक अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलर उपलबध नहह पर चकबनदर अधधकयरर कव आदवश मप0 नस0 4189 हह। पतयवलर मम ससलग आकयर पत 23 आदवश ददनयसक-08- 5-1992 एयर पदतवयदरगण कय नयम खयररज करकव आपधतकतर कलयवतर सर मपकप तनयथ गयमवयसर कय नयम दजर करनव कय आदवश असदकत हह। दमरयन दवचयरयधरन अपरल अपरलकतयर अरण दत पयणडवय दयरय ददनयसक 4-1-2018 नव दवजय पतयप कव हक मम रधजसटटर कर ददयय हह। ऐसर ससथदत मम अपरल पयथर चलयनय नहह चयहतव हह। परसतप अपरलयथर कक षण दत व रदव दत कक भर अपरल दवचयधरन हह। बतमर सयकय आकयर पत 23 आदवश पर मम यह उलवख नहह दकयय गयय हह दक दकस आधयर पर पदतवयदरगण कय नयम खयररज हदकर कलयवतर आपधतकतर कय नयम असदकत हहआ हह। अवर नययययलय कक पसतयवलर उपलबध न हदनव कव कयरण पथम दषयय यह अमलदरयमद ससददगध पतरत हद रहर हह तथय पदतवयदर दयरय कबजय कव ससबसध मम कदई सयकय भर पसतपत नहह दकयय गयय हह। अतत मवरव दवचयर सव मयत आकयर पत 23 कक छयययपदत तथय वयदर व पदतवयदर कक बहस कव आधयर पर दकसर पककयर कद सवतव नहह ददयय जय सकतय हह। अतत उदचत हदगय दक पतयवलर चकबनदर अधधकयरर कद समसत कद इस आशय कय पयथरनय पत ददयय हह दक अपरलयथर सस० 1 कक नकल दयधखल हह, धजसमम असदकत आलदचय भयग 1 भयग 1 तथयक कव पररकण हवतप पतययवदतरत दकयय जयए। तदनपसयर अपरलम सवरकयर दकए जयनव यदगय हह। आदवश उपरदक दवववचनय कव आधयर पर अपरल सस0-707+1171 सवरकयर कक जयतर हह। चकबनदर अधधकयरर कय आदवश ददनयसक-8-5-1992 दनरसत दकयय जयतय हह। पतयवलर चकबनदर अधधकयरर गदपलयपपर कद इस दनदरश कव सयथ पतययवदतरत कक जयतर हह दक पकक कद सयकय एवस सपनवयई कय अवसर दवतव हहए वयद कय दनसतयरण गपणददष कव आधयर पर करनय सपदनसशचत करम। तदनपसयर पकगण अवर नययययलय मम ददनयसक-24-10-2019 कद उपससथत हक। बयद आवशयक कययरवयहर पतयवलर ससदचत अदभलवखयगयर कक जयए। ददनयसक- ह० अपठनरय 30.09.19 एम०डर० ममयर) ( बनददबसत अधधकयरर चकबनदर गदरखपपर 8. A perusal of the finding of the facts recorded by Settlement Officer Consolidation while deciding the title appeal filed by the private respondents as quoted above demonstrate that matter has been remanded back by appellate Court before the Consolidation Officer on the ground that title proceeding is to decided on merit as the order alleged to be passed on 08.05.1992 by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4189 is doubtful. 9 Considering the finding of the fact recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as maintained in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation, there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. The writ petition is dismissed and respondent no. 2/Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the matter in pursuance of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.09.2019 as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.2024 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh as well as Sri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an order dated 08.05.1992 was alleged to have been passed by respondent no. 4/Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4189 in respect to plot no. 605M area 0.255 hectare for recording the name of Smt. Kalawati (mother of the petitioner) in the place of respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 on the basis of objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) filed by Smt. Kalawati on the basis of possession in respect to the plot in question. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have also filed an appeal on 22.04.2008 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 08.05.1992, which was registered as appeal no. 707. Respondent no. 7 has also filed an appeal on 16.12.2016 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 08.05.1992, which was registered as appeal no. 1171. Respondent no. 3-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur vide order dated 30.09.2019 allowed the appeal no. 707+1171 setting aside the order dated 08.05.1992 passed by Consolidation Officer and remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act afresh on merit. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 30.09.2019 by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before respondent no. 2- Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2024 directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter, after inquiring into the record of the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act including Misal band Register as well as Goswara. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record and quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. .000/2022/377 Computerized Case No. 2022530531000002 (Vijay Pratap Versus Arundutt Pandey and others) under Section 48(1) U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 in appeal no. 707+1171 under Section 11(1) U.P.C.H. Act respectively. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have affirm the order dated 08.05.1992 passed by respondent no. 4. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award to cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. This Court has directed the Consolidation Officer to produce the record of the Case No. 4189 under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before this Court. In compliance of order of this Court report was submitted by District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the Court has found that report is not satisfactory accordingly, this Court summoned Collector, Gorakhpur fixing 24.01.2025. A personal affidavit has been filed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Gorakhpur, which is already on the record of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that objection filed by petitioner's mother under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was allowed vide order dated 08.05.1992 in proper manner. He further submitted that time barred appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by private respondent has been allowed and matter has been remanded back before the Consolidation Officer, which is abuse of process of law. He next submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case as set up in revision. He submitted that impugned revisional order dated 30.04.2024 as well as appellate order 30.09.2019 are liable to be set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.05.1992 should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for private respondents submitted that title appeal filed by private respondent has been allowed on the ground that the impugned order dated 08.05.1992 alleged to have been passed in Case No. 4189 is forged and fictitious, as such there was no illegality in the remand order dated 30.09.2019 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal. He further submitted that the petitioner as set up the case on the basis of possession, but no proof has been given by the petitioner regarding his possession. He next submitted that the order dated 08.05.1992 is mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 1, as such no right can be given to petitioner on the basis of alleged order dated 08.05.1992, which is mentioned in C.H. Form 23 Part 1 only. He submitted that no interference is required against the revisional order as well as appellate order as under the appellate order the matter has been remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh on merit.

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 title appeal filed by private respondents against the order dated 08.05.1992 was allowed setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.05.1992 and remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 30.09.2019 has been dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2024.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter a perusal of appellate order dated 30.09.2019 will be relevant, which is as under:- नययययलय बनददबसत अधधकयरर चकबनदर, गदरखपपर अपरल सस0-707-1171 व परगनय हववलर, . तहसरल सदर, जनपद-गदरखपपर असतगरत धयरय 11(1) उ०प० जद०च० अधध० बयबत ममजय- जसगल रयमगढ उरर चसवरर तपपय अरण दत आदद ……… बनयम-……. रदव दत …….बनयम- …... कलयवतर शरमतर कलयवतर दनणरय भयग 1 दयरय गयटय सस0-605 दम0/0-255 ममनव उभय पकक कव दवदयन अधधवकयगण कव तकरस कद सपनय तथय पतयवलर कय अवलदकन दकयय। मवरव पपवयरधधकयरर दयरय ददनयसक-16-5-2015 कद अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलर तलयश करयए जयनव हवतप चकबनदर अधधकयरर गदपलयपपर व रयजसव अदभलवखयगयर कद पतयचयर दकयय तथय चकबनदर अधधकयरर कद दनदरदशत दकयय दक वयदकगत धययन दवकर पतयवलर कक तलयश करयए। अवर नययययलय कव नययययलय धलदपक कक आखयय ददनयसक 5-6-2015 सव सपष हह दक अव नययययलय कक पतयवलर दयधखल दफतरर सपचर कक छयनबरन करनव पर पतयवलर कय असकन हदनय नहह पययय गयय तथय नययययलय धलदपक कद चयजर मम पयप नहह हह। इस पकयर सपष हह दक अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलर उपलबध नहह पर चकबनदर अधधकयरर कव आदवश मप0 नस0 4189 हह। पतयवलर मम ससलग आकयर पत 23 आदवश ददनयसक-08- 5-1992 एयर पदतवयदरगण कय नयम खयररज करकव आपधतकतर कलयवतर सर मपकप तनयथ गयमवयसर कय नयम दजर करनव कय आदवश असदकत हह। दमरयन दवचयरयधरन अपरल अपरलकतयर अरण दत पयणडवय दयरय ददनयसक 4-1-2018 नव दवजय पतयप कव हक मम रधजसटटर कर ददयय हह। ऐसर ससथदत मम अपरल पयथर चलयनय नहह चयहतव हह। परसतप अपरलयथर कक षण दत व रदव दत कक भर अपरल दवचयधरन हह। बतमर सयकय आकयर पत 23 आदवश पर मम यह उलवख नहह दकयय गयय हह दक दकस आधयर पर पदतवयदरगण कय नयम खयररज हदकर कलयवतर आपधतकतर कय नयम असदकत हहआ हह। अवर नययययलय कक पसतयवलर उपलबध न हदनव कव कयरण पथम दषयय यह अमलदरयमद ससददगध पतरत हद रहर हह तथय पदतवयदर दयरय कबजय कव ससबसध मम कदई सयकय भर पसतपत नहह दकयय गयय हह। अतत मवरव दवचयर सव मयत आकयर पत 23 कक छयययपदत तथय वयदर व पदतवयदर कक बहस कव आधयर पर दकसर पककयर कद सवतव नहह ददयय जय सकतय हह। अतत उदचत हदगय दक पतयवलर चकबनदर अधधकयरर कद समसत कद इस आशय कय पयथरनय पत ददयय हह दक अपरलयथर सस० 1 कक नकल दयधखल हह, धजसमम असदकत आलदचय भयग 1 भयग 1 तथयक कव पररकण हवतप पतययवदतरत दकयय जयए। तदनपसयर अपरलम सवरकयर दकए जयनव यदगय हह। आदवश उपरदक दवववचनय कव आधयर पर अपरल सस0-707+1171 सवरकयर कक जयतर हह। चकबनदर अधधकयरर कय आदवश ददनयसक-8-5-1992 दनरसत दकयय जयतय हह। पतयवलर चकबनदर अधधकयरर गदपलयपपर कद इस दनदरश कव सयथ पतययवदतरत कक जयतर हह दक पकक कद सयकय एवस सपनवयई कय अवसर दवतव हहए वयद कय दनसतयरण गपणददष कव आधयर पर करनय सपदनसशचत करम। तदनपसयर पकगण अवर नययययलय मम ददनयसक-24-10-2019 कद उपससथत हक। बयद आवशयक कययरवयहर पतयवलर ससदचत अदभलवखयगयर कक जयए। ददनयसक- ह० अपठनरय 30.09.19 एम०डर० ममयर) ( बनददबसत अधधकयरर चकबनदर गदरखपपर 8. A perusal of the finding of the facts recorded by Settlement Officer Consolidation while deciding the title appeal filed by the private respondents as quoted above demonstrate that matter has been remanded back by appellate Court before the Consolidation Officer on the ground that title proceeding is to decided on merit as the order alleged to be passed on 08.05.1992 by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4189 is doubtful. 9 Considering the finding of the fact recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as maintained in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation, there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. The writ petition is dismissed and respondent no. 2/Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the matter in pursuance of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.09.2019 as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.04.2024 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad