Kushalpal v. Samay Singh and others), under Section

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. Muneshwar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur/respondent no.1 in bearing revision 0510 of 2025 (Kushalpal Versus Samay Singh and others), under Section 48(I) of Consolidation of Holding Act, (annexure no.1 to this writ petition), impugned order dated 15.04.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur/respondent no.2 in case no.23 of 2013 (Gyan Singh Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 42 of Consolidation of Holding Act (annexure no.4 to this writ petition) and impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur/respondent no.2 in bearing case no.RST-4/2017 in Computerized case no.2019550960010001 (Gyan Singh Versus State) under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953 (annexure no.VI to this writ petition). II. Issue an interim order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to maintain the status quo on the spot and stay the construction over the land in dispute."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by the petitioner along with stay application but the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order has rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner in pending revision. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such impugned order rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner in pending revision should be 2 WRIB No. 4128 of 2025 set aside. He further submitted that an appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of pending revision and till the disposal of revision, interim protection for maintaining status quo with respect to nature and possession of plot in dispute be granted.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 submitted that the finding of fact has been recorded under the impugned order while rejecting the stay application to the effect that there is not prima facie case as well balance of convenience in favour of revisionist as such there is no illegality in rejecting revisionist/petitioner. They further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner is still pending as such instant petition against the order rejecting the application for interim relief is not maintainable. application interim relief

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

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the revision under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings under Section 42(A) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before the respondent no.1-the Deputy Director of Consolidation and prayer for interim relief in pending revision has been refused.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of relevant portion of the impugned order will be relevant which is as under:- " आदेश पत्रक न्यायालय: उप संचालक चकबन्दी मण्डल : सहारनपुर, जनपद: सहारनपुर, तहसील: वाद संख्या:-0510/2025 कं प्यूटरीकृ त वाद संख्या:-202554096000000510 कु शलपाल बनाम समय िसह आिद अंतगर्त धारा:- 48(1), अिधिनयम: उ०प्र० जोत चकबन्दी अिधिनयम, 1953 िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकये गये स्थगन प्राथर्ना-पत्र उभय पक्षों की बहस सुनने एवं पत्रावली के (2) 3 WRIB No. 4128 of 2025 अवलोकन से िविदत हुआ िक िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा स्थगन प्राथर्ना-पत्र में ग्राम अम्बेहटाचाँद मु० के चक संख्या-95, िजसका नया गाटा संख्या-716/1877 बनाया गया है, पर िनगरानी के िनस्तारण तक मौके पर यथािस्थित बनाये रखने के आदेश पािरत िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से पाया िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी के आलौच्य आदेश िदनांक-03.09.2025 के पठन से स्पष्ट है िक अिन्तम भूिचन्न में अिभलेखों के अनुसार दुरूस्ती हेतु धारा-52(1) के प्रकाशन के पूवर् प्राथर्ना-पत्र प्रत्यथीर् द्वारा िदया गया था । पूवर् में चकबन्दी अिधकारी द्वारा मानिचत्रकार व चकबन्दीकतार् से िरपोटर् आहूत करके अिन्तम भूिचत्र िदनांक 15.04.2013 को दुरूस्त कर िदया गया। इस प्रिक्रया में उप संचालक चकबन्दी के आदेश िदनांक-16.10.2002 के अनुपालन में प्रिदष्ट नाली भी भूिचत्र में यथास्थान दुरूस्त कर दी गई। इसी आदेश की पुिष्ट चकबन्दी अिधकारी के आलोच्य आदेश में करते हुए आपित्त कु शलपाल िनरस्त िकया है। स्थलीय आख्या िदनांक-15.03.2013 में स्पष्ट है िक गाटा संख्या -716/1877 जोिक त्रुिटवश 718 के दिक्षण में कायम था उसमें दुकाने बनी है तथा वह वहाँ कु शलपाल का कब्जा भी नहीं है। संक्षेप में अिन्तम भूिचत्र की दुरूस्ती अनुसार चक प्रिदिष्टकरण िकया गया। वतर्मान में प्रत्यथीर् वहाँ िनमार्ण कर रहे है वह चक पृथक िकया जा चुका है तथा इसके अनुक्रम में उप संचालक चकबन्दी न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक-16.02.2010 द्वारा अनुपालन भी िकया जा चुका है। मैं इस िनष्कषर् पर पहुँचता हूँ िक सुिवधा का संतुलन िनगरानीकतार् के पक्ष में नहीं है। अतएवं स्थगनादेश िदये जाने का कोई औिचत्य नहीं है। तद्नुसार िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकया गया स्थगन प्राथर्ना-पत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है। गुण-दोष पर बहस हेतु पत्रावली िदनांक-25.09.2025 को पेश हो। िदनांक-18 िसतम्बर, 2025 (अशोक कु मार िसह) उप संचालक चकबन्दी, सहारनपुर।"

8. Considering the categorical finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as quoted about while passing the impugned order rejecting the application for interim relief, no interference is required against the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. the respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, However, Saharanpur is directed to decide the aforementioned pending revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. October 27, 2025 Mini (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. Muneshwar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur/respondent no.1 in bearing revision 0510 of 2025 (Kushalpal Versus Samay Singh and others), under Section 48(I) of Consolidation of Holding Act, (annexure no.1 to this writ petition), impugned order dated 15.04.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur/respondent no.2 in case no.23 of 2013 (Gyan Singh Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 42 of Consolidation of Holding Act (annexure no.4 to this writ petition) and impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur/respondent no.2 in bearing case no.RST-4/2017 in Computerized case no.2019550960010001 (Gyan Singh Versus State) under Section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953 (annexure no.VI to this writ petition). II. Issue an interim order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to maintain the status quo on the spot and stay the construction over the land in dispute."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by the petitioner along with stay application but the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order has rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner in pending revision. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such impugned order rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner in pending revision should be 2 WRIB No. 4128 of 2025 set aside. He further submitted that an appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of pending revision and till the disposal of revision, interim protection for maintaining status quo with respect to nature and possession of plot in dispute be granted.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 submitted that the finding of fact has been recorded under the impugned order while rejecting the stay application to the effect that there is not prima facie case as well balance of convenience in favour of revisionist as such there is no illegality in rejecting revisionist/petitioner. They further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner is still pending as such instant petition against the order rejecting the application for interim relief is not maintainable. application interim relief

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

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the revision under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings under Section 42(A) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before the respondent no.1-the Deputy Director of Consolidation and prayer for interim relief in pending revision has been refused.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of relevant portion of the impugned order will be relevant which is as under:- " आदेश पत्रक न्यायालय: उप संचालक चकबन्दी मण्डल : सहारनपुर, जनपद: सहारनपुर, तहसील: वाद संख्या:-0510/2025 कं प्यूटरीकृ त वाद संख्या:-202554096000000510 कु शलपाल बनाम समय िसह आिद अंतगर्त धारा:- 48(1), अिधिनयम: उ०प्र० जोत चकबन्दी अिधिनयम, 1953 िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकये गये स्थगन प्राथर्ना-पत्र उभय पक्षों की बहस सुनने एवं पत्रावली के (2) 3 WRIB No. 4128 of 2025 अवलोकन से िविदत हुआ िक िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा स्थगन प्राथर्ना-पत्र में ग्राम अम्बेहटाचाँद मु० के चक संख्या-95, िजसका नया गाटा संख्या-716/1877 बनाया गया है, पर िनगरानी के िनस्तारण तक मौके पर यथािस्थित बनाये रखने के आदेश पािरत िकये जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से पाया िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी के आलौच्य आदेश िदनांक-03.09.2025 के पठन से स्पष्ट है िक अिन्तम भूिचन्न में अिभलेखों के अनुसार दुरूस्ती हेतु धारा-52(1) के प्रकाशन के पूवर् प्राथर्ना-पत्र प्रत्यथीर् द्वारा िदया गया था । पूवर् में चकबन्दी अिधकारी द्वारा मानिचत्रकार व चकबन्दीकतार् से िरपोटर् आहूत करके अिन्तम भूिचत्र िदनांक 15.04.2013 को दुरूस्त कर िदया गया। इस प्रिक्रया में उप संचालक चकबन्दी के आदेश िदनांक-16.10.2002 के अनुपालन में प्रिदष्ट नाली भी भूिचत्र में यथास्थान दुरूस्त कर दी गई। इसी आदेश की पुिष्ट चकबन्दी अिधकारी के आलोच्य आदेश में करते हुए आपित्त कु शलपाल िनरस्त िकया है। स्थलीय आख्या िदनांक-15.03.2013 में स्पष्ट है िक गाटा संख्या -716/1877 जोिक त्रुिटवश 718 के दिक्षण में कायम था उसमें दुकाने बनी है तथा वह वहाँ कु शलपाल का कब्जा भी नहीं है। संक्षेप में अिन्तम भूिचत्र की दुरूस्ती अनुसार चक प्रिदिष्टकरण िकया गया। वतर्मान में प्रत्यथीर् वहाँ िनमार्ण कर रहे है वह चक पृथक िकया जा चुका है तथा इसके अनुक्रम में उप संचालक चकबन्दी न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक-16.02.2010 द्वारा अनुपालन भी िकया जा चुका है। मैं इस िनष्कषर् पर पहुँचता हूँ िक सुिवधा का संतुलन िनगरानीकतार् के पक्ष में नहीं है। अतएवं स्थगनादेश िदये जाने का कोई औिचत्य नहीं है। तद्नुसार िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकया गया स्थगन प्राथर्ना-पत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है। गुण-दोष पर बहस हेतु पत्रावली िदनांक-25.09.2025 को पेश हो। िदनांक-18 िसतम्बर, 2025 (अशोक कु मार िसह) उप संचालक चकबन्दी, सहारनपुर।"

8. Considering the categorical finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as quoted about while passing the impugned order rejecting the application for interim relief, no interference is required against the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. the respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, However, Saharanpur is directed to decide the aforementioned pending revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. October 27, 2025 Mini (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)