Abdul Samad v. Sushil Kumar and other vs Subhkaran and other). Along
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39935 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4917 of 2024 Petitioner :- Abdul Samad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Chaddha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjeev Kumar Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Singh holding brief of Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act, Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 17.8.2024 rejecting the petitioner's objection in respect to the plot in question as mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the writ petition. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.8.2024, petitioner filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which has been registered as revision no. 1022 of 2024 Computerized case no. 202454054700001022 (Abdul Samad Vs. Sushil Kumar and other Vs. Subhkaran and other). Along with the aforementioned petitioner's revision, five more revisions were also filed by other person before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revision along with other revisions were heard and dismissed as not maintainable vide impugned order dated 28.9.2024 in view of the provisions contained under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, hence this writ petition for the following relief:-
Decision
"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the natuer of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.09.2024 (Annexure no. 1) to the writ petition passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj in revision no. 1022 of 2024 Computerized case no. 202454054700001022 (Abdul Samad Vs. Sushil Kumar and other Vs. Subhkaran and other) under section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953. (b) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the natuer of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to ensure that parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature, character and possession over khata no. 358 comprising plot no. 1418/3 area 5 decimal situatated at Village Chiuraha Maupakar, Tappa Kathara, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganj and not to create any third party rights concerning the disputed property during the pendency of the instant writ petition, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreperable loss and hardship which may not be compensated by any means." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 21.01.2025 and granted interim protection. 4. Respondent no.4 has put in appearance and submitted that petition be heard without counter affidavit. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's title objection has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer in arbitrary manner accordingly petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which has been illegally dismissed as not maintainable. He further submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (100) RD 426 Faujdar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh and Others, the revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order of Consolidation Officer cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. He submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down in Faujdar (Supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that this Court vide final order dated 06.11.2024 allowed the Writ B No.4003 of 2024 filed by revisionist of revision no.1021 of 2024 and remanded the matter before revisional court to decide the revision on merit. He submitted that impugned revisional order should be set aside and matter be sent back to the revisional Court to decide the revision on merit and till the disposal of the revision, the interim protection be granted as contesting respondents are adamant to disturb the nature and possession of the plot in question. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for private respondent no. 4 submitted that title objection filed by petitioner has rightly been rejected. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents has also supported the impugned order. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that title revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner against the order of Consolidation Officer has been dismissed as not maintainable. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the ratio of law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Faujdar (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "54. We decide Question-A. "Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 against the appealable order passed by Consolidation Officer where no appeal has been filed?- Answer in affirmative. C. Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 in respect to an appealable order passed by the Consolidation Officer where no appeal has been filed. We decide the question-B. Whether the decisions of learned Single Judges in:- 1. Damodar Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others. 2. Santosh Kumar and others Vs. U.P. Sanchalak Chakbandi, Faizabad and others. 3. Ranjeet and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balia and others. 4. Hari Har Ram Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balia and others. 5. Judgement dated 28.9.1999 passed in writ petition No. 26527 of 1999, Rama Shanker Singh and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varnasi and another. lays down correct law or the view taken by the learned Single Judge in following cases lay down the correct law?"- Answer no. 53. Decisions of learned Single Judges in the cases of Damodar Prasad (Supra), Santosh Kumar and Others (Supra), Ranjeet and Others (Supra), Hari Har Ram (Supra) and Rama Shanker Singh and Others (Supra) do not lay down correct law and hereby overruled. The correct law is as expounded by learned Single Judges in the case of Ram Das (Supra) and Ram Saran (Supra). 54. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 11. In view of the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Faujdar (Supra), the dismissal of the revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground of maintainability cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. This Court has granted interim protection for limited period during pendency of revision in earlier Writ B No. 3546 of 2024. 13. Respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 are not represented but this Court is remanding the matter back before revisional Court to decide the revision afresh on merit, as such, necessary parties in revision will be noticed and heard by revisional Court in accordance with law. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 28.09.2024 passed in revision no. 1022 of 2024 Computerized case no. 202454054700001022 (Abdul Samad Vs. Sushil Kumar and other Vs. Subhkaran and other) is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed and matter is remitted back before respondent no.2, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj to restore the aforementioned 1022 of 2024 Computerized case revision no. no.202454054700001022 (Abdul Samad Vs. Sushil Kumar and other Vs. Subhkaran and other) on its original number and decide the same afresh on merit after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties 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 the aforementioned revision by respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the plot in question and no third party interest shall be created by the parties to the dispute. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Asha Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad