Zaheer Khan v. State), under Section on 28 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj passed in Case No.0909 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. 20245405470000 0909), Zaheer Khan v. State), under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'). By the aforesaid order, the area of Plot No.1764 (old Plot No.4429/2963) has been reduced from 4 acres 61 decimals to 21 decimals, correcting an erroneous entry made without the order of a competent Authority.

Heard Mr. Ayub Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing, Mr. S.C. Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

3. The submission of Mr. Ayub Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that old Plot No.4429/2963, admeasuring 4 acres 61 decimals was recorded in the revenue record as Karbala (Kabristan) during consolidation proceedings and final record came to be drawn up accordingly. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the Court's attention to CH Form-41, where Plot No.4429/2963 (Minjumla) is recorded with an area of 4 acres 61 decimals as Karbala. He has next invited the Court's 2 attention to the Khasra relating to Plot No. 1764 for the fasli year 1430, where the said plot is recorded as Karbala with an area of 1.8660 hectares. It is pointed out that after the consolidation operations were over, the revenue records were transferred to the Tehsil, where the khatauni relating to Plot No.1764, described it in Column 2 of the Khasra as an area of

1.8660 hectares. The said khatauni relates to the fasli years 1427-1432. The consolidation seems to have been concluded in the year 1990.

4. It is emphasized that after consolidation operations were over, the area of Plot No.1764 continued to be recorded as

1.8660 hectares in the revenue records of the village. The case of the petitioner is that behind his back and without hearing any of the Muslim residents of the village, when the Nagar Panchayat Nichlaul attempted to take illegal possession of the Karbala land, the petitioner filed a complaint, regarding which an inquiry was made by the Lekhpal and a report dated

10.05.2024 submitted to the Revenue Authorities. The report said that the entry, showing the area of Plot No.1764 as 4 acres and 61 decimals as Karbala, was an erroneous entry, got made deliberately. On the basis of this report, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation submitted his report dated 26.06.2024 to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and, to like effect, is another report dated 27.06.2024 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nichlaul, District Mahrajganj.

5. The Deputy Director of Consolidation registered a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act, which came to be decided by means of the impugned order dated 29.06.2024. The correction of record, that was ordered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, reduced the area of the Karbala, acknowledged as a Kabristan alone, being Plot No.1764 (old 3 Plot No.4429/2963), from 4 acres 61 decimals to 21 decimals in accordance with the entries relating to 1359 fasli and also the basic year.

6. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted.

7. We have already noticed the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing.

8. Mr. S.C. Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the Nagar Panchayat Nichlaul and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, strongly oppose the motion. They submit that it is a clear case of a manipulated and incorrect entry made at or about the time of commencement of consolidation operations, when Partal was done and CH Form-2 drawn up.

9. Upon hearing learned Counsel and perusing the record, what is apparent is that old Plot No.4429/2963 was a minjumla number, comprising four distinct parts with different kinds of land recorded. Plot No.4429/2963 (M) to the extent 4 acres 61 decimals was given new Plot No.1764; Plot No.4429/2963 (M) admeasuring 10 decimals, Plot No.1765(M); Plot No.4429/2963 (M) admeasuring 0.09 decimals, Plot No.1766; and, Plot No.4429/2963 (M) together with Plot No.4430/2963 (M) an area together of 15 decimals, Plot No.1767. This assignment of new numbers to the old Minjumla Plot No.4429/2963 was made during consolidation operations, where CH Form-41 records these changes. In CH Form-41, Plot No.1764 (new) is recorded in the 8th column relating to special description as Karbala, new Plot No.1765, Kabristan and new Plot No.1766, Naveen Parati and the description of new Plot No.1767 in the photostat copy 4 of CH Form-41 has been mindlessly and callously masked by putting a court-fee stamp for the purpose of marking it an exhibit in some proceedings before the Authorities below.

10. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that CH Form-41 relates to final consolidation records and there is no reason to doubt its accuracy. Had this been the issue raised in some other proceedings, possibly the petitioner could have invoked the bar under Section 49 of the Act, though we do not know if that too could prevail, given the findings that have been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Nevertheless, there is no question of the bar under Section 49 of the Act being attracted because the Deputy Director of Consolidation, looking to the reports of the mistake that was apparent in the earmarking of the different nature and areas of land in old Plot No.4429/2963, found that this mistake is there and not backed by any order of an Authority of competent jurisdiction, bearing apparent reference to one or other of the Consolidation Authorities. In the reference, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the total area of Plot No.4429/2963 (M) in 1359 fasli was 3.15 acres, all recorded as banjar.

11. Upon commencement of consolidation operations with the partal done, the total area of Plot No.4429/2963 was recorded as 3.15 acres, where the land was noticed as one put to different uses. According to the varied use of the land, four sub- divisions were made in Plot No.4429/2963. Plot No.4429/2963/2 was noticed to have been recorded in the basic year with an area 21 decimals, which somehow was increased to 4 acres and 61 decimals, without there being any order of the Court or Authority of competent jurisdiction. This increase in the area of Plot No.4429/2963/2 was noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to increase the total admitted 5 area of Plot No.4429/2963 to a figure of 7.55 acres or 7 acres 59 decimals, way beyond its actual and original recorded area of 3.15 acres. The total area of Plot No.4429/2963 was, therefore, directed to be corrected in accordance with the basic year entry as well as the recorded area of Plot No.4429/2963 in 1359 fasli, that is to say, 3.15 acres, instead of 7.55 acres. Likewise, the area of Plot No.4429/2963/2 was reduced to 21 decimals from 4.61 acres or 4 acres 61 decimals. This area is claimed by the petitioner to belong to the Muslim residents of the village on a community basis, to be used as the Karbala. According to the petitioner, the area of this land has been reduced to their prejudice.

12. A look into the Lekhpal's report dated 10.05.2024 indicates that in the basic year, when CH Form-2A was drawn up after partal, there was no entry of Karbala, but a Kabristan. Later on, the Kabristan was put in a separate subdivided number of old Plot No.4429/2963, admeasuring 10 decimals, whereas the other subdivision of the plot was entered as Karbala with an area 4.61 acres. The other two subdivisions are not in question, except to the extent that these would ill-account for the total area of the undivided Minjumla Plot No.4429/2963. A look at the record, the report of the Lekhpal and the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the reference, show on the basis of clear material that the entry of Karbala in one subdivision of Plot No.4429/2963 was made without the basis of an order passed by the competent Authority, surreptitiously and the total area of Plot No.4429/2963 increased from 3.15 acres to 7.55 acres. In the aforesaid manner, without any basis to it, with an unfounded increase in the total area of the old minjumla plot, a non-existent Karbala was entered with an inflated area of 4.61 acres and the area of Kabristan reduced to 6 10 decimals. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on the basis of records, has found the total area, that was in use as a Kabristan, to be 21 decimals. There is no mention of a Karbala in the records of 1359 fasli and the basic year, with reference to the relevant consolidation operations that ended in the year

1990. It is for these reasons that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has ordered the final consolidation records to be corrected in the exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the Act, and in our opinion, rightly so.

13. It needs to be noted here that so far as the grievance regarding non-hearing of the petitioner or any other Muslim residents of the village is concerned, it is stated to be rejected. The reason is that the present proceedings have commenced upon a complaint made by the petitioner, who has acted in a representative capacity on behalf of the Muslim residents of the village and it is on his complaint that inquiries were made by the Revenue and Consolidation Authorities, leading to the registration of a reference before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is no case by the petitioner that in the reference, he was not heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, where the case is registered in his name and against the State. It also need be recorded that the petitioner had earlier invoked our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by a public interest litigation, bearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 843 of 2024, with the same complaint, but that PIL was dismissed by the Division Bench, imposing costs on ground that he had suppressed the material fact of pendency of a suit by one of the parties to the petition, wherein the petitioner had made an application for impleadment. All these features in the history of this litigation and the course of proceedings, exclude the possibility of the 7 petitioner not being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing for himself and on behalf of the other Muslim residents of the village, whose cause he seeks to espouse.

14. No case for interference with the impugned order is made out.

15. This writ petition is summarily dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Anoop (J.J. Munir) Judge ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad